You may remember back in July when the Moorland Association published an incendiary blog accusing the police-led Hen Harrier Taskforce of ‘by-passing regulation‘ on surveillance after the police asked grouse moor owners to sign a letter giving permission for the police to enter land at any time and use equipment for the prevention and detection of crime, including the installation of cameras, proximity alarms and other equipment on and around hen harrier nest and roost sites (see here).
It was that blog that led to the Moorland Association’s CEO, Andrew Gilruth, being booted off the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (here) – I’ll write more on that shortly.
At the time we only had the Moorland Association’s warped view of the police letters given to grouse moor owners in known hen harrier persecution hotspots, because the letters hadn’t been made public.
It’s taken a while but those police letters have now been released after several rounds of FoI requests to the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
Here’s a template of the first letter, given to grouse moor owners at the end of the first police visit. It’s pretty self-explanatory:
The grouse moor owners visited by the police in those hotspot areas were also handed an information sheet outlining the relevant legislation that officers in the Hen Harrier Taskforce could apply when investigating the illegal killing or sudden ‘disappearance’ of satellite-tagged hen harriers:
And here’s a template copy of the letter the grouse moor owners were invited to sign at the end of the visit, giving permission to the police to enter the land and use equipment for the purposes of crime prevention and detection. This is the letter the Moorland Association really objected to (although I daresay they were also pretty unhappy about everything else as well – they haven’t previously been held to account at this level and their sense of entitlement would have been severely damaged):
If I was a grouse moor owner, who professed to love hen harriers and abhor wildlife crime, and who claimed had no idea who was killing hen harriers on my land and argued that it must be armed trespassers because none of my upstanding and law-abiding staff would ever commit such atrocities, I’d be pretty pleased with this police activity and determination to catch the criminals.
Oddly, the Moorland Association didn’t agree!
Draw your own conclusions.
Raptor Persecution UK 
A law abiding person would be prepared to sign this!
“A law abiding person would be prepared to sign this!”
Absolutely!
Game keepers are responsible. They are instructed as part of their job to protect Pheasant and Grouse from predators… They trample Hen Harriet Nests and shoot down the Adults. They also go out at night ‘ squeeking’ and Lamping for Foxes.
I see nothing contentious or controversial here. Needless to say they won’t be publishing a list of who has or has not signed. However, it would be good to know the number of estates th
So how many ‘keepers don’t patrol the estate and have no idea who is shooting illegally? Utter rubbish, yet again.
The very clever letters put them in to check, and their actions (in not signing them) put them in to check mate! Unfortunately, they still keep winning or is it cheating? though! They don’t play straight, they should be chucked out of the game.
Whilst I agree with the comments above they are unrealistic. No business is going to invite the additional risk complying with these requests bring.
The only way that this will happen is if it is part of the licence requirements for grouse shooting. If an estate has to accept cameras and access before it gets a licence then they will need to comply. Until that happens none will go the voluntary route
Very good point.Also the law needs to be the same as in Scotland. Any persecution which is proved, leads to their shooting licence being revoked
“No business is going to invite the additional risk complying with these requests bring….”
… if they are breaking the law.
Whether they are breaking the law or not. Nobody will want to invite risk unless they can categorically prove they are fully complying with law which, would be a very hard push to say the least.
“Whether they are breaking the law or not. Nobody will want to invite risk unless they can categorically prove they are fully complying with law which, would be a very hard push to say the least.”
Absolutely not true. I know of some farmers who had been plagued with rural thefts of expensive machinery, and were only too glad to have the Police deploy professional surveillance equipment, and other farmers who suffered highly unwelcome and damaging visits by mob-handed hare coursers and were only too pleased for the Police to enter their land at any time.
Then there are the fly-tippers, where Council officers may ask famers for permission to deploy surveillance equipment…
You know that it is not up to any individual to “categorically prove they are fully complying with the law” but the job of whatever prosecution service to prove they are not, in a court of law.
Curious as to why anyone thinks it is reasonable for grouse moor owners in raptor persecution hotspots to not sign the Police disclaimer.
Raptor Persecution is a national priority (so they say)!
Signing this pro forma should be a condition of public funding contracts. Farming grants, forestry grants, peatland restoration…grants given for the public good should include this as a standard clause. There are probably other opportunities to include this as a clause in tax reduction schemes…where public access and conservation are offered in lieu of taxes.
I think many members of the public apart from myself would sign s petition urging the government to ban this activity, on the grounds of cruelty, damage to hem harrier populations, and the fact that actually these lands would be better used to either produce food or be rewilded.
I cannot understand the mindset of people that want to be cruel and kill. This is our British wildlife and it’s all part of the ecological flow. People like these imbalance it all and rob the children coming up of the beauty of these creatures. Leave them alone and let the police investigate. Be part of the solution and not the crime. The beauty of the British isles is something we can be proud of. No animal or bird or any living creature should be tormented or have cruelty or pain forced on them. Let nature go back to how it used to be. If you see beauty you find it easier to preserve it. Please,please,please they are already struggling with climate change just as we are.
Well done to the Police. Please roll this out in every area that is a hotspot for persecution. The Police have effectively called the Owners & Agents bluff and shown them up for what they are. When given a golden opportunity to support realistic practical action rather than just pump out same tired PR of disingenuous insincere words (aka bullshit) – the Owners/Agents and their club (the Moorland Association) have suddenly become very shy – have filled their pants and done a runner back tut big ouse and shut t’door hahaha
I can see the issue with signing the second letter, the keeper or other agent is asked to give permission for unknown people to enter land under his management and it clearly states that it may not always be possible for him to be contacted and notified. I can see why this isn’t understood by those commenting, who are mainly already set against grouse shooting anyway.
The keeper/ manager is responsible for the land and the game etc on it, signing a letter of consent to let police wander on to that land without supervision will lead to noisy inexperienced high vis torch wielding officers who, with the best of intentions could cause immeasurable disturbance to the wildlife under his charge, refusing to sign doesn’t suggest any guilty secrecy though to the anti shooting lobby I can see why it might appear that way.
Bloody hell that’s a weak effort Jonathan. “Disturbance” ! hahaha Playing devil’s – advocate I think I could do better than that. You could even have tried invoking ye olde “you wouldn’t like it if the Police put cameras in your back garden” line of bollox?
Your notion doesn’t really merit a response, and will serve as a monument to straw-clutching silliness But to be clear – you are saying that Police officers with specialist training in covert techniques (you have read about what the police are proposing?) will actually turn out to be “noisy inexperienced high vis torch wielding officers” who cause “immeasurable disturbance to wildlife”?
What total crap Jonathan, do you even believe it yourself?
(1) The target area(s) are mainly on CRoW land that people can & do routinely access already.
(2). Even if they were noisy – what “immeasurable” form could this disturbance take? Might it be something akin to running a shoot day with c.80 people, 30+ dogs, 20 vehicles and 500 shotgun blasts per day, or perhaps more like burning 20 – 30 patches of heather per day within a few scores of acres for two or three days consecutively?
(3) It can be inferred from reading about the people the Police are partnered with, that they will benefit from additional specialist advice via licensed raptor fieldworkers as to any special measures around roosts.
So for me your concern is not a real concern at all, it reads more like a token effort at water-muddying – but please do expand some more on your concerns about “immeasurable disturbance” – with some true to life examples👍
“I can see the issue with signing the second letter, the keeper or other agent is asked to give permission for unknown people to enter land under his management…”
Not “unknown people”: specialist Police Officers.
“I can see why this isn’t understood by those commenting, who are mainly already set against grouse shooting anyway.”
And I can see that you are set in favour of it.
“The keeper/ manager is responsible for the land and the game etc on it, signing a letter of consent to let police wander on to that land without supervision will lead to noisy inexperienced high vis torch wielding officers who, with the best of intentions could cause immeasurable disturbance to the wildlife…”
Not “inexperienced high vis torch wielding officers”: specialist Police Officers.
“could cause immeasurable disturbance to the wildlife”. As much as Grouse shooting does all year round? Draining. Burning. Snaring. Trapping. Illegally killing. Medicating. Shooting.
Mike and circus Maxima I agree with your comments if they don’t sign the contract public money is with held but a lot of valid points made. These estates need to tow the line legally.
This new approach represents a step change from the Police, which I welcome. It at least directly puts the estates on notice.
You have to say that Andrew Gilruth, does not have the subtlety of his predecessor, which is also welcome.