Back in September, an article appeared on the Birdguides website announcing the Hawk & Owl Trust’s withdrawal from the hen harrier brood meddling sham (see here), although the details were vague and I couldn’t find a statement on the Hawk & Owl Trust’s own website.
For new blog readers, hen harrier brood meddling was a 7-year conservation sham (2018-2024) sanctioned by DEFRA as part of its ludicrous ‘Hen Harrier Action Plan‘ and carried out by Natural England, in cahoots with the very industry responsible for the species’ catastrophic decline in England. In general terms, the plan involved the removal of hen harrier chicks from grouse moors, they were reared in captivity, then released back into the uplands just in time for the start of the grouse-shooting season to be illegally killed. It was plainly bonkers. For more background see here and here.
Two days ago the Hawk & Owl Trust published the following statement on its website (reproduced here as things have a habit of ‘disappearing’ from that site):
It’s a weird statement, first trying to justify the Hawk & Owl Trust’s involvement in this conservation sham by suggesting it took advice from three leading academics, forgetting to mention that one of those leading academics had been proposing a brood meddling trial for years (so he was hardly independent) and his university department was probably set to benefit financially from his involvement by receiving public money in the form of associated research grants. Oh, and also forgetting to mention that a Director of the Hawk & Owl Trust was also at the centre of the brood meddling sham and her organisation was also set to benefit financially by being paid for undertaking the brood meddling. Conflict of interest, much?
The statement then goes on to state that the Hawk & Owl Trust’s involvement came with conditions – including “a promise to end support if any illegal harm occurred“. This is a promise that the Hawk & Owl Trust broke over and over again, despite having many opportunities to honour it (e.g. here), including the killing of a hen harrier (Rowan) whose satellite tag the Hawk & Owl Trust had funded (see here, here, here, here, here and here).
The statement then attempts to minimise the Hawk & Owl Trust’s role in the sham by saying: “HAOT hasn’t directly carried out the initiative but has played a supportive role, offering insights and backing evidence-based solutions to balance wildlife conservation with human interests“.
Er, the Hawk & Owl Trust was directly involved in the brood meddling sham – its Chair, Philip Merricks, served on the Hen Harrier Brood Meddling Project Board, a position that brought with it all the associated responsibilities for the brood meddling sham, as detailed in this Natural England document:
It looks like the Hawk & Owl Trust is trying to re-write history here, but there’s no getting away from it – it was in up to its neck with the brood meddling sham right from the start, and it stayed there right through to the bitter end.
The final sentence in the Hawk & Owl Trust’s statement is just bizarre. Having spent the rest of the statement trying to play down its role and acknowledging that illegal persecution of hen harriers continues to be an issue, it says this:
“Future success depends on licences, funding, and cooperation between conservationists, land managers, and stakeholders, building on the foundation laid by the initiative“.
What licensing is that, then? The licences that the Moorland Association is so desperately keen for that would allow the brood meddling of hen harriers to continue as a routine part of grouse moor management, rather than just as part of a seven-year trial?
Or is the Hawk & Owl Trust suggesting that the licensing of grouse shooting is the way forward, where grouse shooting estates would have their licences revoked if raptor persecution crimes continued on that land?
It’s not clear to me whether the Hawk & Owl Trust is endorsing brood meddling as a long term solution or not. But who knows? And frankly, who cares? The Hawk & Owl Trust trashed its reputation and credibility amongst raptor conservationists by getting in to bed with the grouse shooting industry seven years ago. It could have got out of bed at any time but instead it chose to get further under the duvet, pulled a mask over its eyes and stuck in some earplugs. I don’t value its opinion any more.
Raptor Persecution UK 
Well said, Ruth. Thanks:-)
I can remember a NERF conference at about the time this all started when NERF had withdrawn from the original Hen Harrier Dialogue and one P Merricks spent much of that conference trying to persuade us talking to the grousers was what we needed to engage in ( It clearly wasn’t) He was either a fool or one of the Dark side in the wrong job. In the end he lost HOT lots of members including me, Chris Packham ( much more important than me) and completely ruined its reputation amongst raptor workers and conservationists.
Typical biased article making widespread unsubstantiated claims to try and persuade the public that every raptor flying over a grouse Moor is subjected to a barrage of fire from every gamekeeper in the area. The failure of a satellite tag does not mean that the bird is dead, indeed there have been instances of indivual birds thought dead being seen minus their tags. It is a fact that the biggest killer of raptors is other raptors. It is also an inconvenient fact that raptors nesting in deepened ground have a far greater survival rate than any rspb reserve.
“The failure of a satellite tag does not mean that the bird is dead, indeed there have been instances of indivual birds thought dead being seen minus their tags.”
You will be able to provide the references for those, then? And then compare them with the hundreds of instances listed in the UKRP blog, where tags have suddenly stopped transmitting in or near Grouse moors and neither bird nor tag have ever been seen again?
“It is a fact that the biggest killer of raptors is other raptors”
You’ll be able to provide references for that, too, then?
The RSPB say it is not true. See https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/british-birds-of-prey-raptors-under-threat
“It is also an inconvenient fact that raptors nesting in deepened ground have a far greater survival rate than any rspb reserve.”
That is a lie.