Some of you may remember a joint statement issued by five pro-shooting organisations in January 2020 professing ‘zero tolerance’ for raptor persecution crimes.
I wrote at the time why I didn’t find their claim convincing and that the five signatory organisations (BASC, Moorland Association, National Gamekeepers Organisation, Countryside Alliance, Country Land & Business Association) needed to do much more to persuade anyone to take them seriously. Just being so-called partners on the sham Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG) is nothing more than a greenwashing exercise, in my opinion.
More evidence has now surfaced about the National Gamekeepers Organisation (the membership body for gamekeepers in England & Wales) and what I would call its underhand tactics to try and disrupt investigations into alleged raptor persecution crimes.
In December 2023 I submitted an FoI request to Northumbria Police asking for, amongst other things, copies of 2023 correspondence between the National Gamekeepers Organisation (NGO) and Deputy Chief Constable Debbie Ford, who at the time was the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) Lead for Rural & Wildlife Crime.
It turns out that the NGO had written to DCC Ford in February 2023 to highlight its three concerns in relation to bird crime.
The NGO’s first complaint was redacted by the FoI officer at Northumbria Police (see below). I’ve since submitted a separate FoI request for this detail and await a response.
The second complaint related to, surprise surprise, the NGO’s objection to the involvement of the RSPB in raptor persecution investigations. I’ll come to that below.
The third complaint related to the RSPB and members of the North of England Raptor Forum (NERF) and about what happens to birds and eggs once an investigation had concluded. It isn’t clear to me what the basis of this complaint is.
Here’s a copy of the FoI response I received from Northumbria Police:
Let’s focus on the NGO’s second complaint about the RSPB’s involvement in raptor persecution investigations.
This is a tired old trope that gets regurgitated every now and then by those who seek to marginalise the expertise and experience of the RSPB. Expertise and experience that has been utilised by police forces across the UK, time and time and time again, resulting in criminal gamekeepers being hauled before the courts and being convicted of raptor persecution crimes. This partnership working has been particularly effective in recent years, with the police leading many multi-agency raids (with partners including the RSPB, Natural England, NWCU and Natural England), resulting in the high profile conviction of a number of criminal gamekeepers (e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here).
Perhaps it’s these successful convictions of gamekeepers that have triggered the NGO’s complaint? But in this case, the NGO has provided wholly misleading ‘evidence’ to DCC Ford to justify their complaint. They reference a poisoned red kite found in Yorkshire in 2021 by the RSPB’s Investigations Team and argue that ‘police officers didn’t find out about this until 6 months later‘.
That’s not a factual account of what happened at all, and I daresay the NGO probably knows this because I wrote about that case 12 days before the NGO sent its email to DCC Ford. It relates to a poisoned red kite found on Swinton Estate that North Yorkshire Police failed to investigate, despite being told by the RSPB about the discovery of the kite on the day it was found (see here for case details).
So not only is the NGO going crying to the National Police Lead on Wildlife Crime with a baseless complaint about the RSPB, it’s also attacking an organisation that it’s supposedly in ‘partnership’ with on the RPPDG – you know, that ‘partnership’ that is supposedly focused on tackling raptor persecution crimes.
There’s more.
According to the FoI response I received from Northumbria Police, DCC Ford didn’t reply in writing to address the NGO’s complaints, but someone from DCC Ford’s office had a conversation with the NGO and suggested that the NGO raise the issue at the next RPPDG meeting.
In response to that suggestion, the NGO’s Development Officer (North), who I presume is John Clarke, wrote back to DCC Ford’s staff officer wanting “assurances that there will be 100% support from the police to carry this through” and he included a veiled threat about the NGO leaving the RPPDG (having already resigned once before) if the police didn’t support the NGO’s attack on the RSPB:
Interestingly, the NGO’s complaint has not been raised at any subsequent RPPDG meetings, presumably because the police refused to support it.
Why is the National Gamekeepers Organisation still serving on the RPPDG? It’s absurd to think that this so-called ‘partnership’ for tackling raptor persecution crimes will achieve anything of significance whilst the NGO is attempting to disrupt police investigations via the back door.
Raptor Persecution UK 
Par for the course, I am afraid. If it was not for the financial power they hold as an industry their behaviour would ahv e seen them thrown out of the discussions and projects years ago, in my opinion. Examples of bad behaviour abound.
Having once been employed in a Scottish Sheriif Court, I know for a fact that when egg collectors are caught and prosecuted, the RSPB is called in, as Expert Witnesses to identify bird eggs. Pretty normal I’d think, as there aren’t a lot of folk who can identify eggs of various birds; especially birds of prey.
The evidence is obviously retained under Procurators Fiscal until trial is completed and appeals are completed.
After that it is the business of the PF to arrange disposal and NOT anything to do with the RSPB (Scotland)
I believe there is a formal system, ‘Friend of the Court’, in English law whereby outside experts give their expertise and experience to the benefit of the legal process. Perhaps the Gamekeepers will object to that next?
How often has a gamekeeper be convicted of wildlife crime as the result of evidence submitted by the National Gamekeepers Organisation? Never, I’d guess (correction welcome) – the NGO’s repeated attempts to discredit the RSPB clearly signal their sole purpose – the continuation of xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx
I’ve never understood the logic of having NGO, or for that matter Countryside Alliance at RPPDG or any other liaison meeting between conservationists and the grouse/shooting lobby groups neither can really deliver anything. The CA is a pressure group and NGO membership surely does what their employers tell them. As others have said though this is par for the course. Why don’t they like RSPB to be involved, simple really it is their expertise, something they would rather not have to deal with, oh and their absolute integrity and honesty. The latter something some of us might suggest that some members of NGO are rather unfamiliar with.
I wonder if the NGO being concerned about what happens to the dead birds and eggs (after an investigation is concluded) relates to the oft & casually repeated myth among some shooting circles that the RSPB has freezers full of dead birds and routinely “plants” them on Estates as fake evidence? Complete & utter rubbish of course, but it allows some otherwise sensible people to deceive their brains, cover their eyes and ears and follow their hearts in denial of the ugly truth.
The very fact that NGO and its representatives think this stupidity says far more about them, their blinkered prejudices and sheer pig ignorance than it ever will about RSPB.
Thank you Ruth The best Sleuth by a country mile.
Sent from my Galaxy
Not saying one side is right and one is wrong but surely if the birds and eggs after the case is completed are destroyed (if they already aren’t) it would remove this myth. For example Raptor workers should not be able to remove the remaining hen harrier eggs after a failed breeding attempt or if they do there should be records showing how they were destroyed. Simple things like this can remove any excuses to any investigation.
I don’t see any problem with the RSPB helping the police with their investigations but there should always be police present when evidence I.e dead bird etc is removed for testing, this would also remove any excuses or allegations of wrong doing by anybody investigating a crime. This way nobody can deny or accuse what is, maybe or not happening with evidence.
One last point – if the RSPB has no access to dead birds or eggs or any evidential material there can be no more excuses of keepers being set up.
my personal view is that what the NGO is asking for May just prove something that they don’t want!
Aside from other reasons, anyone who remembers Aldrin and Dieldrin would agree with the RSPB having posession of eggs from abandonned nests, to be used for anayses. I assume such checks are made often enough to secure reliable data. Or might NE perform this function?
Keeping and presenting evidence is the province of the police, I cannot imagine that in any case, evidence of this nature is retained or returned to RSPB. Anything else I suspect goes against all police and court procedures. What NGO do or do not believe about this and the idea that evidence in the form of bird corpses is recycled to incriminate again is an UTTER NONSENSE perpetuated by their own sheer stupidity, anti RSPB prejudice and a complete failure to own the truth about the persecution that is both rife and routine in game shoot management. Let’s not pander to this in the slightest.
I really don’t understand the NGO’s concern. The handling and storage of any evidence has to be fully transparent and accountable, regardless of whether it is the police or any other organisation which seizes the evidence from a crime scene. I am sure the RSPB investigators are fully aware of this and will properly document any evidence they find, and take all reasonable steps to ensure that there can be no allegations that the evidence has been tampered with or contaminated? It is also probably the case that in many other non wildlife criminal investigations, someone other than the police may have initially found and seized evidence, evidence which is then later handed over to the police to assist with their enquiries. I am sure the police document this fact, and if there are any concerns regarding the credibility of a piece of evidence, this can be raised in any court proceedings. So why do the NGO insist that it should only be the police who pick up and handle evidence in suspected wildlife crimes?
As has been previously discussed on this blog, the fact that most raptor persecution crimes occur in remote places exposed to the natural elements, then in any investigation surely it is in the interests of conducting a fair, thorough and impartial investigation, that any evidence relating to a suspected crime is seized at the first opportunity, so that the evidence isn’t degraded or contaminated? There is also the risk that if any evidence is left out in open countryside to await the attendance of the police, then there is the risk the evidence could be lost or concealed by the perpetrators of any crime which may have occurred?
It would also appear that the NGO have overlooked the fact that once evidence has been seized from a potential crime scene, then it is often sent for forensic analysis. This analysis isn’t carried out by the police, but by other bodies and external organisations who specialise in this type work. Do the NGO have concerns regarding these other non-police agencies handing and examining evidence?
The reality is that the majority of wildlife investigations involve partnership working between the police and other bodies such as NE, the RSPB, the RSPCA (SSPCA); and how many potential raptor persecution crimes have been initially discovered by NE or RSPB investigators working in the field? With such frequent partnership working, I would hope that the police have established some protocols, so that when a suspected wildlife crime is uncovered and there isn’t the availability of specialist police wildlife officer to dispatch to the crime scene, then these non police personal present at the scene are able to gather and seize any evidence?
It should perhaps also not be forgotten that in many raptor persecution incidents those convicted of crimes have been game keepers. Perhaps the NGO should be more concerned by this criminal element who operate within the game shooting industry, and cause so much damage to reputation of the keepers and landowners who do take their conservation and countryside stewardship work seriously, and want to see an end to raptor persecution, rather than potentially attempting to introduce unnecessary complications in the way evidence is initially seized at a suspected crime scene?
No-one has mentioned ‘Chain of Custody’. That the gamekeepers may be ignorant of it is no surprise, though I assumed someone with more knowledge that I would have quoted it here. I assume it applies under Scots Law. It should silence the gamekeepers’ allegations.
It records the process of handling evidence from start to finish.
Maybe the NGO deliberately chose not to make reference to the rules regarding the seizure, storage and movement of evidence, because it could potentially totally negate their concerns regarding the RSPB’s involvement in wildlife investigations?
I also have to wonder whether the NGO raising of this issue of evidence gathering by the RSPB is motivated by the fact that RSPB investigators have been instrumental in uncovering so many raptor persecution crimes involving gamekeepers?
Which then raises the issue that if some of the people who are supposed to be custodians of the nations countryside are involved in the criminal persecution of supposedly protected species of birds, then it just adds further weight as to why the entire game shooting industry needs proper regulations to control it in such a way that the criminals can no longer operate.
Hopefully if we see a change in the Westminster government after the next General election, then this issue will be progressed, as it makes a whole mockery of the governments promises to improve the state of nature by 2030, if criminals can undo much of the good conservation work which is taking place.