Press release from Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (1st December 2023)
Reaction to the RSPB Birdcrime Report
The RSPB recently published its latest ‘Birdcrime’ report.
David Butterworth, Chief Executive Officer of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, said: “It is yet again hugely embarrassing that this part of the country has been shamed as being the worst for proven and suspected bird of prey persecution in the UK.
“An end to the illegal killing of birds cannot come soon enough. Some of the instances of criminality this year beggar belief. The stamping to death of 4 young Harrier chicks and one Harrier having its head pulled from its body while still alive. Truly shocking levels of depravity.
“It’s all the more galling because there are signs of positive change. Some local land managers are doing great work to conserve birds of prey in the National Park.
“We are currently preparing a new evidence report on bird of prey populations in the National Park on behalf of the Yorkshire Dales Bird of Prey Partnership. We hope this report will be published in the coming weeks. Sadly all of this will count for little whilst the persecution of Birds of Prey continues“.
ENDS
Bravo, David Butterworth, for this very public and unequivocal condemnation of the ongoing raptor persecution in this so-called National Park.
But isn’t it time the pretend Yorkshire Dales Bird of Prey ‘Partnership’ was closed down? The RSPB has already left because it recognised the futility of trying to ‘partner’ with the likes of the Moorland Association – how much more time, money and effort is going to be pumped into this pseudo-union, whilst the crimes against birds of prey just carry on and on and on?
Partnerships and coalitions only work when objectives are shared. In the case of the Yorkshire Dales Bird of Prey ‘Partnership’, the Chair of the Moorland Association doesn’t even accept that hen harrier persecution is happening (see here), let alone that it’s an issue that needs to be addressed. What’s the point of continuing this ‘partnership’ charade?
As an aside, the RSPB’s 2022 Birdcrime report was published ten days ago and it contains a lot of material that I want to blog about. I’ve been distracted by events in Scotland (more golden eagle persecution, more peregrine persecution, and a landmark vote by the Scottish Parliament to agree to the general principles of a grouse moor licensing scheme) but I haven’t forgotten about the Birdcrime report and will come back to it shortly….
Raptor Persecution UK 
It’s great that the park Chief Executive has pledged to tackle raptor persecution but as long as some members of the board are in denial about it, the authority is going to be hamstrung about eliminating it
So hugely embarrassed he has decided to ban Grouse Shoots.
Ha! Hot air and dead wildlife.
Well there’s nothing like stating the obvious but getting these xxxxx is not easy so it may be a good idea to try stopping the shooting a lot of the farmers are sick of it but they are also intimidated by these thugs from what I was told by a couple.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
The National Park Authority isn’t in a position to “try stopping the shooting” as much of it takes place on privately-owned land within the Park.
Well done to David Butterworth, CEO of Yorkshire Dales National Park for condemning the high level of raptor persecution in the park. The Dales is almost devoid of raptors. I’m afraid it illustrates just how powerless the national park is in tacking this issue.
This is good to see from YDNP but the organisations representing shootingdon’t seem to be embarrassed at all and rather than appearing to do something useful about this ( like giving information to the police or expelling those they deem guilty). They bleat on about brood meddling, yet persecution by the many has not declined, or how it’s a tiny minority when the figures not only of persecution but of successful raptors on grouse moors suggest otherwise or that they are totally intolerant of persecution ( blah , blah blah do something about it then!)
I suspect the good guys in the partnership are loath to walk and leave just the Park authorities, NE and shooting groups at the table. My own view for what it is worth is that such partnerships will only really function if they include all interested parties including the police except the shooters organisations and their employees.
On another front I was surprised to see the lost Golden Eagle had visited Nidderdale and returned to Scotland. Why? because in the days when young eagles were almost regular winter visitors in Nidderdale during the eighties and nineties it wa suggested to me by a keeper I knew well that birds visiting Nidderdale might well be the reason the population in the Lakes and North Northumberland was not thriving and growing.
Hi Paul, genuine question – does being on the Partnership enable the NERF Harrier monitoring people to be given open vehicular access to the miles and miles of private Estate roads across the National Park? Surely the Partnership would insist on that as a bare minimum? Names of Estates that do or do not give access would be interesting to know in public domain, and to see if there is any correlation to the losses of tagged birds. Giving such access is such a small concession, not even an inconvenience (if Estates have nothing to hide) – a truly well intended Owner or HK I would also give keys to the shooting lodges (out of shooting season) to make work of monitors a bit more practical & comfortable. I have heard of several Estates who give keys to the shooting lodges for those teams of guys coming in to do summer grouse counts with pointers, etc.
Simple answer is a resounding no! It is however not that simple the NE monitoring person in the Dales doesn’t want any others on the ground and nor do the estates. Much of the Merlin monitoring is now done through head keepers as agents of one J Orchel ( a scheme inaugurated by those in NE who wanted to get and keep independent raptors workers out) and again this is another excuse to try and keep folk off, to the point of threats to report folk to NE licensing or BTO licensing. This even in areas where others including myself and colleagues used to monitor Merlin and Hen Harriers. There is no official monitoring group for most of the Dales, since I stopped co-ordinating ( and doing most of the work in Nidderdale) and those in the Park dropped out or died. I still do some but not very much as I now of course live in mid Wales.
Perhaps National Park should end the Partnership, and set up its own monitoring group and use auspices of RSPB and/or NERF. Citing the fact that the current system is not working. If additional licences are requested by National Park but not forthcoming from NE, then that would be an embarrassing thing to get into the media.
This sounds like a right can of worms which could do with a good shake up!
Partnerships are not like contracts with fixed terms and duration, they should exist while there is work which a partnership can benefit and if that ceases to be the case then they should be disbanded or new partnerships formed which will progress matters. This is clearly no longer the case here and the situation outlined by Paul and Sphagnum is pretty obviously a large part of the raptor persecution problem which is the YDNP.
Would you guys care to expand on the situation which you have touched on here (like in a guest blog), for the benefit of those of us less steeped in the local history of RP in the Dales, and how it impacts on brood meddling – drop in a few names and estates perhaps!
The problem in the YDNP and Nidderdale AONB ( also in the partnership) is really no different to any other grouse moor area except in degree and that is largely down to the fact that the NW part of the park is a gateway for harriers entering the Park post breeding AND a persecution hotspot. Some harriers also used to arrive early in the SE of the Park and the adjacent Nidderdale AONB and winter in that area another persecution hotspot, although persecution has lessened in the area due to the use of BM it hasn’t entirely gone away. I’m not going to elucidate the main harrier breeding areas but certainly since BM success has been better but persecution has gone away. Peregrines are largely confined to breeding sites outside grouse moor areas where almost all sites have been kept vacant for ~30 years ( how much killing does that take. Short Eared Owls are scarcer than they were, Goshawks are almost absent yet bred in the 80s and 90s. Buzzards are doing OK just but there is a lot of killing of them and poor breeding success in many areas associated with shooting. Red Kites are kept out by persecution. There were never many field workers because access was largely denied but for a very few estates prior to open access (2005/06) and then only for Merlin. There are now fewer fieldworkers than ever and they are excluded as much as possible by Estates/ the NE fieldworker and the Orchel Merlin monitoring scheme, plus the age thing mentioned earlier. However there are more Hen Harriers than there were and more nests succeed, Marsh Harrier is slowly colonising so it’s not all bad. I’m not going to mention owners or particular estates despite there being some absolutely notorious estates and keepers because Ruth would quite rightly do some censoring, there are also at least two very good ones that have both hosted BM releases but not sadly any natural harrier nesting.
While not relevant to wider unrelated persecution incidents, surely the hen harrier Free was predated by a fox, looking at the photos from your earlier blog? Moved at night from usual roost (caught and moved by fox) relocated to the area of a stone cairn (as shown in background of photos), where vixen and cubs likely to be residing in April. Classic work of a dog fox providing for a litter, including removal of head. Surely anyone basically familiar with fox behaviour can see it as that?
Now I’m sure there will be cries of “the experts” saying that it was human activity, but on what basis? Were any of the feathers around the head or missing leg DNA tested for fox? They look damp compared to rest of the bird, as would be expected from some transfer of fox saliva?
I recognise there are enough other incidents to go around to show ongoing persecution, but it rankles a little where emotive language and supposition is used such as here, where the reality is probably quite mundane and explainable when put into correct context.
Alauda, the information in the blog is directly from Natural England’s press release about Free:
‘Free’s body was recovered and sent for post-mortem examination to diagnose signs of death. Shockingly and upsettingly, the post-mortem examination concluded that Free’s leg had been torn off while he was alive, and that the cause of death was the head being twisted and pulled off while the body was held tightly. These injuries would be consistent with Free being killed by human hands. There were no other signs of damage from any animal, and Free had not been shot’.
“Free was found dead, headless and missing a leg, but showing no other sign of being eaten or scavenged by an animal predator, and still fitted with his satellite tag.”
“These injuries would be consistent with Free being killed by human hands. There were no other signs of damage from any animal, and Free had not been shot.”
Leg removed, presumably by a numbwit who thought removing the leg and ring would help to hide the birds identity or to keep as a trophy. Some of the folk involved in persecution are obviously complete sadists ( met a keeper once not in the Dales, who fitted that description) and beyond any sort of redemption.
“They look damp compared to rest of the bird, as would be expected from some transfer of fox saliva?”
No, they do not.
“Classic work of a dog fox providing for a litter, including removal of head. Surely anyone basically familiar with fox behaviour can see it as that?”
Foxes do not just twist and tear – because they have no facility for holding other than with their teeth – they bite and chew. Yet bite marks were not reported from the post mortem. Foxes do not remove a single leg, either, and then leave the rest of the carcass. Surely, anyone basically familiar with fox behaviour can see that?
Despite all the issues I have with NE and the work they task their fieldworkers with (and Estates they work with), I would still credit their fieldworkers with being skilled & experienced enough to tell whether it was likely naturally predated and even perhaps what by…or if enough doubt exists / concern over being unnaturally killed – to send for post-mortem to be done – which they did exactly that and which is the basis of the case! I really can’t see that there is any scope remaining to give ye olde water-muddying stick an airing on this one.
Ban driven Grouse shooting, license Pheasant shooting and tax pheasants bred for release at £5 a bird. Shooting has shown it won’t move even an inch and an equally draconian reaction is entirely justified.
Well said Roderick..enough!!
I totally agree.These guys will give you nothing.
agree absolutely wholeheartedly, although I would ban all Pheasant and RLP releases but not the shooting of them
I sent him an e mail to say no more hols in dales until you sort it out
The YDNP work with NERF on a number of issues and some estates are co-operative ( the or some of the few good guys) the problem is suitably good and experienced field workers to do the monitoring. Again NE seem less than enthusiastic about folk they or the estates don’t have any control over and the folk with the right skill set are all on the wrong side of 40, many indeed the wrong side of 60. Of course there is the Merlin issue with the Orchel scheme seemingly growing yet totally unwilling to share ANY information, The North Yorkshire Pennines were never an easy place to work because of what one might call local “politics” but now it is far worse. As I said earlier not helped by an NE field worker who is not keen on other workers especially it seems those who know what they are doing, Peregrines are barely adequately covered let alone other species of moorland ( HH, Merlin and SE Owl) let alone woodland stuff.
These comments highlight just why game shooting, hunting and fishing needs to highly regulated with meaningful and enforceable legislation within all the nations national parks.
Where practices are discovered which are damaging to the environment, the flora and fauna, or where criminal activity is suspected then there needs to be proper sanctions which the national parks authority or Natural England or their equivalents in Scotland and Wales can immediately enact, which would suspend all the shooting, hunting etc associated with those damaging or criminal practices. Such a ban would apply equally to all estates regardless of whether the criminal activity or bad practice had occurred on that estate or not.
These estates do not operate in a vacuum, and I am sure that those involved in the land management on the shooting estates within the national parks are aware of just who is most probably behind the illegal persecution of raptors, or other criminal activities. As such a complete ban across all the estates would act as a very good incentive for the shooting industry to rid itself of the so called “bad apples”, who we are repeatedly told are just a minority and not representative of the industry.
Such measures should also be applicable to AONB’s
If raptors can’t be safe in the national parks, or other similar designated areas then just where can they be safe?
“These comments highlight just why game shooting, hunting and fishing needs to highly regulated with meaningful and enforceable legislation within all the nations national parks.”
I hope you said that in your response to the Government’s “Landscape Review” consultation which ended April 2022.
See:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/landscapes-review-national-parks-and-aonbs-government-response/landscapes-review-national-parks-and-aonbs-government-response
Collective punishment ? Mmm ! Think the ECHR might object.
Don’t see why? Isn’t this just how the EU works, when legislation passed in Brussels applies equally to all member states regardless!!
Seriously, though I did give the matter some thought, and the reason why I would apply a suspension of shooting activities across an entire national park if malpractice or criminal activity was found to be occurring in one part of the park, is that the game shooting industry repeatedly denies involvement and claims such activities are being carried out by a small minority of rogue operators.
So if shooting regulations were introduced which enabled a complete revocation of all shooting activities across the entire park, then I am sure the “good” estates would be both fearful and annoyed that their financial viability could be jeopardised by what was happening on a neighbouring estate. This might act as an incentive for all the shooting estates and landowners within a national park to form a partnership to work together to ensure the highest land management practices were strictly adhered to. Something which I understand organisations like the Moorland Association, BASC, and National Gamekeepers Organisation all promote. As such it could be an enabler to help these organisations ensure all their members adhere to the high codes of practice which they promote.
Such a move could also ensure that proper sustainable shooting, alongside real conservation remained a feature within the parks, and if raptor populations increased to the extent that game bird numbers were effected, then this should equally effect all the estates, and not just those who currently abide by the rules.
This could then create a level playing field, and ensure any public money paid to estates for conservation work was distributed fairly to ensure the ongoing viability of that estate.
I strongly believe that if we are really going to solve the raptor persecution problem, then we have to think outside the box. I don’t for one minute believe any government will ban grouse or other game bird shooting, and I am not sure that would actually be a good thing, (I have seen the good work being undertaken by some landowners which is part financed from the revenue shooting generates), but we do have to find a way so that the rogue players within the shooting industry are eliminated and the criminal activity stops, and this is just a suggestion.
“Don’t see why? Isn’t this just how the EU works, when legislation passed in Brussels applies equally to all member states regardless!!”
What a weird, distorted, view of the world.
What you are claiming is that if ONE member state infringes any legislation passed by the EU then ALL member states should be equally punished.
And you not only think that is how the EU works, but that it is, somehow, ‘fairer’!
“Seriously, though I did give the matter some thought…”
Not enough.
“… and the reason why I would apply a suspension of shooting activities across an entire national park if malpractice or criminal activity was found to be occurring in one part of the park, is that the game shooting industry repeatedly denies involvement and claims such activities are being carried out by a small minority of rogue operators.”
Do you apply that ‘logic’ to all crime?
You do realise, don’t you, that defence lawyers tend to ‘repeatedly deny involvement’ of their clients in whatever crimes they may have been accused. Should defence lawyers also be equally punished as their clients – if found guilty?
You do not know (or care, apparently) that some shooting estates within a National Park may NOT even be members of the organisations you name.
There’s a reason collective punishment is illegal.
It’s called Joint Enterprise, it’s not illegal and it has been applied in Europe were all hunting has been suspended in an area because of a few people carrying out illegal acts against Raptors, It was reported on this website and I think it was either in Spain or Malta. It’s a good idea, shooting in a national park should be seen as a massive privilege not a god given right.
“It’s called Joint Enterprise”
No, it is not. Xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx pointing you to the Supreme Court of England and Wales definition pack:
Click to access joint-enterprise-debate-pack.pdf
[Ed: Be nice, Keith!]
My mistake, the article I referred to was on the Raptor Politics site and it wasn’t just an area that had shooting/Hunting suspended it was the entire country of Malta. They classed it as collective punishment even though this was made illegal at the 4th Geneva convention.
https://raptorpolitics.org.uk/2015/04/29/malta-the-early-forced-closure-of-spring-hunting-shows-hunters-inability-to-obey-the-law/
I note your reply is rude, personally abuse and contains unfounded fanciful accusations.
This isn’t the first time your response to comments made by others has been made in this way.
Are you an online bully, and incapable of engaging in polite online discussion and debate, without resorting to abusive remarks and comments?
Perhaps you would like to share with readers your own suggestions and proposals to help tackle the issue of raptor persecution in the national parks, because at the moment you don’t appear to have offered anything positive to this discussion.
Or is it, that you don’t really have anything to offer on this subject?
A suspension of shooting across a national park, when raptor persecution crimes are occurring within that park is a not collective punishment, but a way of ensuring that a national park delivers what the public expect, which is a safe environment for some of the nations most vulnerable wildlife.
It is very noticeable that despite all the claims from the shooting industry’s umbrella organisations that raptor persecution isn’t tolerated, and that the crimes are being committed by only a small number of “bad apples”, the fact that these crimes repeatedly occur, and over such a wide geographical area would suggest that this isn’t true and that there is far more involvement across a much larger proportion of those involved in shooting than the shooting industry wants to admit.
Why are so many police investigations thwarted by a lack of information or witnesses coming from those working within the shooting industry to help identify those responsible for the crimes?
I believe most of these crimes are occurring in remote places, with small rural populations, and where most people know each others business, so the lack of information being given to the police to help identify the criminals is difficult to comprehend, especially when the shooting industry itself claims not to tolerate such behaviour, and when there will be those within the industry who know who is responsible.
You should also note, I am not suggesting a complete ban on game bird shooting, which many would like, but attempting to discuss ways in which the national parks could be better managed, so that wildlife and raptor crimes can be more meaningfully tackled.
The accusation being levelled against the shooting industry, and which appears to be the position the Scottish Government has taken, by its proposal to introduce a licensing scheme, is that it is the nature of how the shooting industry operates, and the desire to produce artificially high game bird populations which is the driving force behind much of the criminal persecution of raptors.
As such when raptor persecution crimes associated with shooting occur within a national park, I would suggest it makes sense to discuss suspending shooting across the entire park, especially when the criminals can’t be identified and stopped.
Do you not agree that a way has to be found to incentivise landowners and those working within the game shooting industry to help eradicate the criminals who appear to be able to operate so freely within the industry?
A suspension of shooting across a national park, when raptor persecution crimes are occurring within that park might be such an incentive?
If you wish to disagree, then please fully explain why.
If you have a better suggestion, then please share it.
But if your response is going to be nothing more than a further impolite tirade of abuse, then please don’t bother and go and find something better to do with your time. Because I am sure most readers don’t want to read your online abuse directed towards others who wish to engage in polite debate on this subject, and your rude abusive comments do a great disservice to those who are working hard to try and end raptor persecution.
“I note your reply is rude, personally abuse (sic) and contains unfounded fanciful accusations.”
Because I disagree with your half-baked idea of ‘collective punishment’ within National Parks? An idea not supported by any law within the UK and in direct contravention of others. Or because I disagree with your claim that ‘collective punishment’ is how the EU works?
“Perhaps you would like to share with readers your own suggestions and proposals to help tackle the issue of raptor persecution in the national parks, because at the moment you don’t appear to have offered anything positive to this discussion.”
My response is public knowledge, because I took part in the recent Government consultation on our National Parks and how to manage them. I have yet to hear you say whether you also took part in that consultation.
You have yet to explain why “suggestions and proposals to help tackle the issue of raptor persecution” should be restricted to National Parks.
“If you have a better suggestion, then please share it”
I already have, many times, as well you know: I am in favour of a complete ban on all forms of shooting, in all parts of the UK, but in the meantime I will support any legislation which seeks to restrict its damaging effects (and will complain if it does not).
But you say you are “not suggesting a complete ban on game bird shooting”. I wonder why?
“But if your response is going to be nothing more than a further impolite tirade of abuse, then please don’t bother and go and find something better to do with your time.”
Is that ‘impolite’ and ‘tirade’ enough?
‘Collective punishment requires collective responsibility. No-one is going to propose or enter such an arrangement, which would make them liable for someone else’s behaviour. Collective punishment is what is happening in Gaza and it is, at any level, oppressive. There is no point in proposing solutions to the grouse problem which are wrong in principle. You don’t deal with a squalid industry by adopting equally squalid authoritarian solutions.
If you really want, as you say, to think outside the box you need to stop seeing it as ‘the raptor persecution problem’ and start seeing it as a land use problem, which translates directly to a land ownership problem. Any country needs to take control of its land, a communal resource, and use it for the common good which, unlike Europe, is very far from the situation in any of the countries of the UK. There are numerous mechanisms, fiscal and regulatory, within that which could strangle sporting estates in the first instance and then devote land to social and environmental objectives. Many of us have been through decades of the ‘good estates / bad estates’ nonsense which you seem to think will provide some niche for raptors, all of which will always be on landowners terms. ‘Revive’ in Scotland provides the proper perspective, political, social and environmental, for addressing the whole issue and it is just astounding that down there in Middle England you are still blethering like Sweetie Wifies about Good Guys and Bad Apples..
its only collective punishment if you see proper, fair, legitimate and proportionate regulation as punishment because to most of us it isn’t.
Really?
What is being proposed is not ‘proper, fair, legitimate and proportionate’. That’s the point.
yes it is. What do you think isn’t?
Game shooting for entertainment is a human right, is it?
Really?
“Game shooting for entertainment is a human right, is it?”
Unfortunately, game shooting is legal in this country.
What is a human right is for everybody to be treated equally under the law.
Just a note to say that AONBs are now called National Landscapes. They were rebranded at a national launch in London a couple of weeks ago.
The new name reflects the fact they are one level below national parks to stress their importance. It’s also less of a mouthful to say. I just wish NPs and NLs had greater protection
I’m speechless and so upset by it all but well said everyone except that stupid Alauda who ever you are spouting such shite . FFS fox !!! Bird was mutilated by man not eaten . Ban driven grouse shooting stop the import and rearing pheasants which is a cruel going on birds in appalling cages conditions it’s all unesessary cruelty on a massive scale.