Further to this morning’s blog about Natural England’s farcical interim evaluation of whether, as a result of brood meddling, attitudes within the grouse shooting industry had changed towards a greater tolerance of hen harriers (see here – spoiler alert, no, they obviously haven’t!), Natural England has today made an announcement about the status of the hen harrier brood meddling sham trial.
For new blog readers, the hen harrier brood meddling trial was a conservation sham sanctioned by DEFRA as part of its ludicrous ‘Hen Harrier Action Plan‘ and carried out by Natural England between 2018 – 2024, 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 where many were illegally killed. It was plainly bonkers. For more background see here and here.
Natural England’s announcement, attributed to John Holmes, NE Strategy Director, and published here, announces that the seven-year brood meddling sham trial has concluded and the ‘partnership’ has now closed.
The announcement also states that no decision has yet been taken about whether NE will issue licences for hen harrier brood meddling to be rolled-out on a wider, annual basis – we know that there is currently a live licence application outstanding from the Moorland Association (grouse moor owners’ lobby group in England) for brood meddling, which apparently (see here and here) includes the following condition requests:
- That there should be a single release site [for the brood meddled HHs] irrespective of the location from where they’d been removed from their nests; and
- That the requirement for the brood meddled HHs to be satellite-tagged should be dropped.
Natural England states that it has commissioned four research reports about the brood meddling trial, covering population modelling, social science, and evaluation, and that any decision on the future of brood meddling licences will be based on an assessment of those reports. Only one report has been published so far (population modelling) and there is no indication about when the others will be published.
Natural England’s general review of the brood meddling trial has concluded that during the initial stages of the trial there was a significant increase in the number of hen harriers nesting in some grouse moor areas, mostly where brood meddling was being undertaken. However, towards the later stages of the trial this figure dropped substantially.
Natural England’s review has also concluded that illegal persecution has continued throughout the trial period in some grouse moor areas.
The NE-commissioned report on recent hen harrier population trends was undertaken by the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) and was published this morning (see below for report). The study used a population modelling approach to try to determine the mechanism behind the sudden increase in the hen harrier population and whether that was attributable to the brood meddling trial or to other factors.
The authors used modelling techniques to look at changes in the rates of hen harrier productivity, survival and settlement but there were obvious constraints in the limited data available. They concluded that it was not possible to determine definitively whether the population increase was solely related to brood meddling or whether it was a response to wider environmental drivers (e.g. high prey availability).
The study was unable to determine whether hen harrier survival had increased in England during the trial period, and if it had, to what extent.
In total, 15 hen harrier nests were brood meddled during the trial period and 58 chicks were released back into the uplands. We know that at least 30 of those brood meddled chicks were either brutally killed or ‘disappeared’ in suspicious circumstances, mostly on or close to driven grouse moors. Some of them did manage to survive long enough to breed but many of them were killed within a few weeks/months of being released.
In addition to those 30 young birds, we know there were at least another 104 hen harriers that were killed or ‘disappeared’ during the brood meddling trial period (and actually this figure will definitely rise – we’re waiting for the police to publicise more cases).
So what have we learnt? That despite over 70 years of supposed legal protection, and over £1 million (at least) of public money being wasted on years of facilitating pantomime ‘partnerships’ and a sham brood meddling trial, hen harriers are STILL being killed illegally by many within the grouse shooting industry.
I’m pleased that Natural England has finally seen sense and closed the brood meddling trial – it should never have even started – but we still need to see whether NE will issue further brood meddling licences to the very industry that’s responsible for bringing the hen harrier to its knees.
Natural England’s statement this morning included this:
‘It follows that a range of approaches may be required to reduce illegal killing on grouse moors and increase hen harrier numbers in future, potentially ranging from co-operative approaches to mitigate the impacts of hen harriers on grouse and support responsible grouse moor management, to monitoring and enforcement activities designed to tackle illegal killing and disturbance, depending on location and situation‘.
No, Natural England. Forget ‘co-operative approaches to mitigate the impacts of hen harriers on grouse‘. If these businesses are not sustainable because they cannot function without illegally killing protected species then the industry should be consigned to the dustbin. Enough, now. This charade of sustainability and respectability has gone on for far too long.
For those who want to see an end to driven grouse shooting, please sign this petition calling for a ban. It currently has 77,000 signatures – it needs 100,000 signatures before 22nd May 2025 to trigger a parliamentary debate in Westminster.
For those interested in reading the Natural England-commissioned report on recent hen harrier population trends in England, undertaken by the BTO, it’s available to read/download here:
UPDATE 14 April 2025: Natural England / DEFRA turns down licence application for hen harrier brood meddling in 2025 (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 
DEFRA and the Government are as much use as chocolate fireguards. Both need to go NOW.
what all you grouse shooting haters have not realised is if grouse shooting is banned the landowners is not going to see his land unproductive. He will sell carbon credits and over plant the moors with forestry. You are shooting yourself in the foot as the habitat will change and there will be no nesting on forest floors.any small areas left for nesting will be alive with foxes and crows so eggs and nests will perish.
Have you visited Tarras Valley NR?
Hi Skylark. You’ll be relieved that this won’t happen. NE published a paper within the last two years pointing out that most of this land is SSSI so landowners can’t plant conifers. And secondly, aren’t you forgetting that all these landowners repeatedly state that they love curlew and the uplands (I would add hen harriers, but sarcasm can only stretch so far) so they wouldn’t want to risk ruining their habitat, would they?!
Well said, Bowland Bruce!
what the hell do you get out of killing any creature . Watching something die leave nature alone.
Good habitat and plentiful prey isn’t much use to you if you’re shot dead within a few days of arrival.
The Moorland Association request for a single release site, and no tagging? Mmmmm, target practice?
I can understand them not wanting tags on the birds, though I’m amazed that they have come out into the open and said so. What I don’t understand is why they require that the young birds should all be released at the same location. Has anyone any suggestions?
“What I don’t understand is why they require that the young birds should all be released at the same location. Has anyone any suggestions?”
Yes. They had difficulty in finding enough shooting estate owners to volunteer to take on the hated Hen Harrier and thereby ‘threaten’ the viability of their own shoots. But, I guess, that they reckoned they could always find at least one such owner.
Presumably, they were proposing a single release site simply because no other estates would tolerate hen harriers on their land / around their grouse if that’s what you meant. I haven’t read which single site they were proposing for releases but who’s to say they were even proposing a site / estate that had grouse on it.
I don’t understand them not wanting the released birds to have tags for any other reason than that their safer / less risky to kill. (I think that’s also what you were getting at)
p.s I liked your response Bowland Bruce.
I’m with you born n bred defra government and Moorland association natural England ( the Putin and Trump ) need to go let the right people look after these places and yes Tag the birds m xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx xxxxx xx xxx ccccccxxxp>
Obviously I am pleased they have ended this and I hope that MA don’t succeed in using their political influence to wangle their own licensed scheme. I would now suggest that NE and/or the Police (working together) redirect the funding into an undercover surveillance operation, and that they get it up and running very quickly. In the short term I would expect a noticeable upward trend in persecution, especially in the Yorkshire Dales and probably elsewhere.
I agree Sphagnum it’s needs to be managed and taken seriously by the right people Police and serious convictions for perpetrators and estates.
Now that the HH Action Plan has been closed, one would like to think Natural England now realise that aiding and abetting criminal behavior never works. In my view they should concentrate on taking a leadership role in support of the National Wildlife Crime Unit and the relevant police forces.
Catch the buggers !
Hi Swaledale – just for clarity, it’s the brood meddling trial that has ended, not the HH Action Plan (of which brood meddling was a small but significant part).