The Scottish Government’s nature advisory agency, NatureScot, has been now been procrastinating for 17 months on whether to impose a sanction on an estate in relation to the ‘shooting and killing’ of a sleeping Golden Eagle called Merrick.
Merrick was a young satellite-tagged Golden Eagle, released in south Scotland in 2022 as part of the South Scotland Golden Eagle Project, a lottery-funded conservation initiative which translocated young Golden Eagles from various sites across north Scotland to boost the tiny remnants of the Golden Eagle breeding population in south Scotland that had previously been decimated by illegal persecution and had become isolated by geographic barriers.
Camera trap photo of golden eagle Merrick in 2022, from South Scotland Golden Eagle Project
A year after her release, which had seen her fly around south Scotland and down into northern England and back, on 12 October 2023 Merrick’s satellite tag suddenly and inexplicably stopped transmitting from a roost site in the Moorfoot Hills in the Scottish Borders where she’d been sleeping overnight.
A project officer from the South Scotland Golden Eagle Project went to her last known location where he found Merrick’s feathers and blood directly below her roost tree. Police Scotland later determined from the evidence that she’d been ‘shot and killed’ and that someone had then ‘removed her body and destroyed her satellite tag’ (see here).
There was limited scope for anyone to be charged and prosecuted for killing this eagle unless someone in the know came forward with sufficient evidence to identify the individual(s) responsible. In addition, the prospect of an estate having its grouse-shooting licence withdrawn as a consequence of this crime was zero, given that this offence took place prior to the enactment of the Wildlife & Muirbun (Scotland) Act 2024.
That just left a General Licence restriction as a possible sanction. Not that I’d describe a GL restriction as an effective sanction, for reasons that have been explored previously on this blog (e.g. here and here). Nevertheless, it’s still something and, given the high-profile of Merrick’s death, you might think that making a decision on whether to impose a GL restriction would be a high priority for NatureScot.
I wrote about NatureScot’s procrastination on this case in August (see here), after receiving a response to a Freedom of Information request I’d lodged in June 2025. That response confirmed that NatureScot had received an information package from Police Scotland, on which it would base its GL restriction decision, in April 2024.
Seventeen months on and we’re now at the end of September 2025 and there’s still no sign of a decision from NatureScot.
What’s the hold up? Why hasn’t this decision been a priority for NatureScot?
What sort of message does NatureScot’s procrastination send out to others who might be thinking of ‘getting rid’ of a Golden Eagle in south Scotland, or any other part of Scotland for that matter?
The consequences became very clear yesterday when it was announced that two more satellite-tagged Golden Eagles from the South Scotland project had ‘disappeared’ in suspicious circumstances.
Press release from Police Scotland, 29 September 2025:
APPEAL FOR MISSING GOLDEN EAGLE
Detectives are appealing for information after a satellite-tagged golden eagle disappeared in the hills to the north of Langholm.
The tag on Tarras, a four-year-old male golden eagle, has displayed suspicious patterns and data reports, and officers are concerned he may have come to harm between Wednesday, 27 August, 2025 and Friday, 29 August, 2025.
A full search of the area where his tag last transmitted has been carried out using specialist resources, including dogs trained in tracing birds and their tags, however neither the bird nor the satellite tag have been recovered.
Tarras was translocated to the area in 2021 as part of the South of Scotland Golden Eagle Project.
Officers and wildlife partners have subsequently been unable to trace his mate, Wren. Although there is nothing to suggest she has come to harm, her disappearance coincides with that of Tarras and concerns are growing for her welfare.
Detective Sergeant David Lynn, National Wildlife Crime Coordinator, said: “The data received from Tarras’ tag suggests that he has come to harm to the north of Langholm and efforts remain ongoing to locate him and his tag.
“We cannot say for certain that Wren has also come to harm, but her disappearance is worrying.
“Our investigation remains ongoing, and we are working with a range of partner agencies to establish more details around the disappearance of both birds.
“I would urge anyone with any information that may assist to contact us.”
Anyone with any information should call 101, quoting reference number 1987 of Friday, 26 September, 2025. Alternatively, please contact Crimestoppers though 0800 555 111, where anonymity can be maintained.
ENDS
There’s quite a bit of information missing from this press release, just as there was from the other recent press release about the poisoned Red Kite found in Perthshire.
This was a satellite-tagged territorial pair so the sudden disappearance of both of them at the same time is highly suspicious.
Why isn’t there any information provided about their last known positions according to their tag data? A police search has already taken place, so it’s not as though naming the location would provide a suspect with a chance of hiding or removing evidence.
It’d be very interesting to know the proximity of the nearest Red-legged Partridge release pen to the eagles’ last known locations…
In November last year, conservation campaign group Wild Justice published a report (Collateral Damage) highlighting shockingly high levels of rodenticides (rat poisons) found in Buzzards and Red Kites and showed how the UK Government was ignoring the evidence (see press release here).
This led to a flurry of Parliamentary questions (see here) and promises for a review in 2025.
Since then, further reports show that the use of Second Generation Anticoagulant Rodenticides (SGARs), particularly Brodicfacoum, is causing widespread harm to wildlife including Foxes, Otters and Peregrines (see here).
A poisoned Red Kite. Photo by Dr Marc Ruddock
The Health & Safety Executive (HSE) which controls the approval regime in the UK for rodenticides and decides what can and cannot be used, has announced a consultation on rodenticides. The consultation is looking at what alternatives to SGARs are available.
If the HSE is going to continue to approve SGARs for use, it needs to show that no other viable alternatives are available.
Apart from taking preventative measures, there ARE other viable alternatives, but the chemical companies aren’t keen for these to be promoted because SGARs are highly profitable financially, even though they’re disastrous for many species, especially raptors, from an ecological perspective.
The alternatives include:
Non-SGAR alternative rodenticides such as Cholecalciferol, with which the targeted rodent stops feeding once a lethal intake has been consumed (reducing risk of secondary poisoning of predators and scavengers).
Zinc Phosphide – a highly effective acute rodenticide.
DR8 – a product developed with the support of the New Zealand Government which is specific to rats and poses no apparent secondary poisoning risk.
Carbon Dioxide gas (also known as Rat Ice).
Contraceptive products such as ContraPest, which controls rat populations by restricting rodent reproduction.
The HSE’s public consultation is not especially user-friendly, and nor does it seem to have been widely promoted (apart from amongst the chemical companies who will no doubt be pushing for the HSE to retain its approval for SGARs and to ignore the alternatives).
However, Wild Justice has prepared some helpful guidance on how to complete the consultation and is encouraging as many members of the public as possible to take part – you’ll find the guidance here.
The deadline for completing this consultation is this coming Tuesday (30 September 2025) so we don’t have long.
Please, if you have some time today, have a go at completing the consultation and help put pressure on the HSE to remove, or at least limit, the use of SGARs.
The trial of an 87-year-old man, accused of multiple offences linked to alleged raptor persecution, has been put on hold after his defence lawyer told the court he intends to apply for Judicial Review of the judge’s ruling that the case should not be dropped.
Brian Chorlton, of Morkery Lane, Castle Bytham, Lincolnshire, was summoned to court in April 2025 following reports that birds of prey were being poisoned in the Castle Bytham area.
In May 2025, Chorlton appeared at Lincoln Magistrates’ Court and pleaded not guilty to 11 charges relating to the unapproved or unlawful storage of the chemical Aldicarb, possession of a poisoner’s kit, and possession and use of four pole traps. The trial was set to take place in October 2025.
However, on 18 September 2025 a case management hearing took place at Lincoln Magistrates’ Court where the defence submitted three separate legal arguments calling for the case to be dismissed. I won’t elaborate on those arguments at this stage but they are unusual, and are not related to the use of covert surveillance as is often the case.
The District Judge rejected all three legal arguments and the application to dismiss the case was rejected.
The District Judge said he intended for the trial to proceed in October but offered a further case management hearing, due to take place one week later, to allow the defence time to consider the ruling.
That second case management trial took place at Lincoln Magistrates’ Court yesterday (25 September 2025) and the defence announced its intention to apply to the High Court for Judicial Review of the judge’s earlier ruling.
This means the original trial date (October 2025) has now been vacated. There will be a further case management hearing in January 2026 for the defence to update the court on its application for Judicial Review.
Royal Courts of Justice in London. Photo by Ruth Tingay
The application for Judicial Review is a process whereby the defence will be seeking permission from a High Court judge to proceed to a full Judicial Review. This typically takes between two to six months but can take longer, depending on the court’s schedule and the availability of a judge and also whether the judge wants an oral hearing or is satisfied with the written submissions on which to make a decision.
If permission is granted, the case will then move to a full Judicial Review and that can take up to a year before it’s heard, sometimes longer, and if the judge’s decision is reserved, there can then be a further wait, often months, waiting for the judgement to be delivered.
NB: As criminal proceedings are still live, comments have been switched off.
Earlier this month a judge ruled that covert video surveillance obtained by the RSPB is admissible evidence in the prosecution of gamekeeper Racster Dingwall, who has been charged in relation to the alleged shooting of a Hen Harrier on a grouse moor (Coniston & Grassington Estate) in the Yorkshire Dales National Park on 2nd October 2024.
Mr Dingwall pleaded not guilty to two charges at an earlier court hearing at Skipton Magistrates’ Court in May 2025. Those two charges are:
Possession of an article capable of being used to commit a summary offence under Section 1 to 13 or 15 to 17 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act;
Encourage/assist in the commission of a summary offence believing it will be committed.
The pre-trial hearing at York Magistrates’ Court on 9 September 2025 was specifically to hear legal argument about the admissibility of the RSPB’s video evidence, on which this prosecution is based.
I wrote briefly about the judge’s decision to accept the RSPB’s video evidence at the hearing on 9 September and said I would elaborate further when I had the time.
The following commentary seeks to provide more information about the judge’s decision and is based entirely on the notes I made during that hearing.
York Magistrates’ Court. Photo by Ruth Tingay
This pre-trial hearing was held before District Judge Adrian Lower. The involvement of a District Judge (professionally and legally qualified) is perhaps the reason why this case moved from Skipton Magistrates’ Court to York Magistrates’ Court.
District Judges don’t tend to sit in the smaller, or rural courts, but where a case is legally complex then there is often a request to move the case to another court to be heard before a District Judge rather than the lay magistrates (also known as Justices of the Peace) in a smaller court, who are volunteers and not legally trained/qualified to the extent of a District Judge.
Mr Dingwall and his solicitor did not attend the pre-trial hearing at York on 9 September 2025 – District Judge (DJ) Lower acknowledged that Mr Dingwall had been excused (the reason for his absence wasn’t given in open court).
The sole representative in court for Mr Dingwall was his barrister, Mr Justin Rouse KC. Long-term blog readers may recognise this name – Mr Rouse KC represented a gamekeeper from the Bleasdale Estate in Bowland, Lancashire in 2017-2018 who had been charged with nine offences relating to the alleged killing of two Peregrines on this grouse-shooting estate in 2016 in appalling circumstances. The prosecution had relied heavily on covert surveillance provided by the RSPB but the case collapsed when the presiding District Judge accepted Mr Rouse’s defence argument that the evidence should be ruled inadmissible (not necessarily on the strength of Mr Rouse’s arguments but more likely on the weakness of the prosecution lawyer, who was hopelessly underprepared for court- see here for detailed commentary on that case).
Appearing for the prosecution (CPS – Crown Prosecution Service) at York Magistrates’ Court on 9 September 2025 was Mr Jody Beaumont.
The hearing opened with DJ Lower stating that he’d read the submissions from both sides (about the admissibility of the RSPB’s video surveillance) and that he didn’t intend to hear a repetition of those submissions in court. He asked whether Mr Rouse KC and Mr Beaumont had anything new to add and both replied that they didn’t.
No doubt DJ Lower wanted to save valuable court time, but his decision not to have the legal arguments presented in open court makes it very difficult to provide an informed commentary on what happened next, because I don’t have the benefit of knowing the exact details of each side’s position.
Nevertheless, a general sense of the defence’s argument could be gleaned from some of the remarks made later by DJ Lower and it became apparent that there were two main issues to be discussed – the admissibility of the video evidence and an issue about disclosure.
The interpretation that follows is based on my understanding of what was said and should be viewed with appropriate caution given the circumstances just described.
It was clear that Mr Rouse KC for the defence had made an application to the court to exclude the RSPB’s video evidence (and thus have the case dismissed), under Section 78 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).
Section 78:
‘…..In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court, that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it’.
DJ Lower said that Mr Rouse’s view was that the RSPB should be viewed as a public authority in the way it gathered evidence (i.e. regulated by various legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998 & Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) which controls the manner of covert surveillance operations) – this is a very similar argument to the one Mr Rouse used in the Bleasdale case and, if accepted by the court in this latest case, would result in the RSPB’s evidence being ruled inadmissible because the RSPB hadn’t operated by the provisions required of a public authority in undertaking covert surveillance on private land (i.e. needing authorisation).
DJ Lower said he could not agree with the submission that the RSPB was a ‘public authority’. He said that the RSPB is arguably a substantial business, “a charity like no other“, but that although the RSPB was involved in the investigation, the material had been handed to North Yorkshire Police. He continued, “There is bound to be close coordination between the RSPB and North Yorkshire Police but that doesn’t mean that the RSPB becomes a public authority and is regulated as such by various legislation“.
DJ Lower agreed that there needs to be consideration about whether the RSPB should be considered a public authority but that this was not a decision a judge could make – it should be for Parliament to consider.
He said that the crux of the S.78 application was – regardless of whether the RSPB is or isn’t a public authority – would submission of the evidence have such an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings? He said this was a discretionary judgement for the court to make and in his judgement, “there would be no adverse affect“.
He continued: “The RSPB evidence has been subject to review by the CPS and it is their decision to prosecute or not. I cannot see how admitting the evidence gathered from the RSPB would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings. I am not prepared to dismiss the case“.
DJ Lower then referred to an alleged abuse of process, claimed by the defence (the details of this are unknown). DJ Lower asked Mr Rouse whether he had anything more to say on that allegation and Mr Rouse accepted that it had been addressed by the judge.
The legal argument then moved on to the disclosure issues (the details of which are unknown, which made the discussion confusing).
There seemed to be an argument about the defence not yet having had access to between 70-80 hours worth of RSPB video footage. Mr Beaumont (CPS) told the court that there was an ongoing discussion about how to manage the files and send them to the defence, but given that ‘senior management’ were involved, “this should be sorted out very soon“.
The defence was interested in a series of photographs taken by the RSPB between 16 September – 19 October 2024 consisting of “vehicles, houses, males, dogs and moorland“. Mr Rouse thought they may be capable of undermining the defence.
Mr Rouse said that because the RSPB investigators say they were acting on intelligence, the defence had asked for that intelligence material that led the RSPB to installing the surveillance equipment.
Mr Rouse continued, saying the defence’s principal concern about the disclosure of footage was the extent of “data breaches for the defendant and others recorded when they should not have been recorded” because “the RSPB were trespassing and the capture of data was unlawful“.
Mr Rouse also raised concerns about the police’s Section 19 (WCA) search of the moor. He asked how the police knew where to search, was the RSPB involved in that search, and if so, the identities of any RSPB staff involved should be disclosed. DJ Lower and Mr Beaumont agreed.
DJ Lower dismissed Mr Rouse’s concerns over privacy because any images captured by the RSPB could be “pixellated to protect the identity of members of the public“.
He suggested the discussion about disclosure should be continued between the defence and the prosecution, and that disclosure of all relevant evidence should take place within 28 days, and at the latest by 4pm on 7th October 2025.
DJ Lower set a two-day trial date (29th-30th January 2026, pending witness availability) at York Magistrates’ Court and said the case would be reserved for him.
He granted Mr Dingwall unconditional bail and asked his representative to ensure Mr Dingwall understood the consequences of non-attendance at court on 29 January 2026.
NB: Because criminal legal proceedings are live, the comment facility has been switched off.
Press release from Police Scotland (24 September 2025):
BIRD OF PREY FOUND TO BE POISONED IN PERTH & KINROSS AREA
Enquiries into the death of red kite are ongoing.
On 22 June, 2025 a dead red kite was found near to its nest to the north west of Braco, in the Perth and Kinross area.
Subsequent post mortem examination and toxicology testing have shown that the bird had ingested toxic levels of rodenticide.
The red kite was also found to have ingested the banned substance aldicarb. Aldicarb has been illegal in the UK since 2007 and no products containing this substance are approved for use in the UK.
Birds of prey, like all wild birds in Scotland, are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly kill or injure them.
Wildlife Crime Coordinator, Detective Sergeant David Lynn, said: “This red kite has been poisoned resulting in a very painful and distressing death. Legal rodenticides must be used with extreme caution to avoid the poisoning of non-target species or you may be liable to prosecution. The use of Aldicarb is an illegal and reckless act as this substance can be fatal for both animals and humans.
“Our investigation into this incident is continuing and we will pursue anyone who targets Scotland’s birds of prey. I would encourage anyone with any information in relation to this incident to contact us.
“We ask anyone using the area to be vigilant if they find anything suspicious, don’t touch it, but do take photos and report to Police Scotland immediately on 101.”
Anyone with information is asked to call Police Scotland on 101 quoting incident number 1176 of 23 September, 2025.
The RSPB has, justifiably, grown tired of waiting for the Welsh Government to implement regulations on the release of millions of non-native gamebirds (Pheasants and Red-legged Partridges) and wants urgent action to protect native wildlife from the threat of highly pathogenic Avian Influenza (bird flu).
In an article published last week, the RSPB argues that the Welsh Government has ignored the recommendation of its own statutory nature advisor (Natural Resources Wales – NRW) for too long and risks causing damage to protected wildlife and habitats by permitting the continued, unregulated release of gamebirds.
Millions of non-native Red-legged Partridges are released into the UK countryside every year for shooting. Photo by Ruth Tingay
Following legal action by Wild Justice in 2020, Defra added Pheasants and Red-legged Partridges to Schedule 9 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act, which means that these species are recognised as having the potential to cause ecological harm and can now only be released in England under licence.
This decision prompted Welsh Ministers to ask NRW whether there was an issue with gamebird releases in Wales and if so, to consider options for regulation.
In October 2023, after a public consultation that attracted 42,000 responses, NRW provided Ministers with very clear advice (see report below) that both Pheasants and Red-legged Partridges should be added to Schedule 9 of the W&CA so that any future releases in Wales would have to be licensed/regulated.
NRW suggested that if Ministers accepted the advice, a licensing scheme could be up and running by the start of the 2025 shooting season (i.e. now).
Since receiving that advice almost two years ago, Welsh Ministers have sat on their hands and done precisely nothing about it.
Meanwhile, Avian Influenza has been creeping across the UK with catastrophic consequences for not only many wild birds (particularly seabirds and some bird of prey species), but also for poultry farmers and the egg sector, some of whose businesses have been ruined (e.g. see here and here).
The RSPB has uncovered a shocking outbreak of Avian Influenza in May this year, described in last week’s article as follows:
‘In May, two Pheasants tested positive for bird flu in the North Berwyn hills, presumably having been released from a pen. Within weeks bird flu was confirmed in captive gamebirds nearby. We now know, having obtained information under the Environment Information Regulations, that the two reported were from a mass mortality event of around 875 dead Pheasants “in the wild”. The nearby game-rearing facility contained 11,000 Pheasants and 10,000 partridges, following which protection and surveillance zones were declared, which prevented gamebird releases until it was revoked last month.
‘This is extremely concerning because the entire population of Red-listed Black Grouse in Wales is in North Berwyn and the adjacent moorlands, and it’s an important area for breeding Curlews. Bird flu outbreaks in released Pheasants also pose a risk to scavengers including birds of prey. The incidents are close to the Berwyn Special Protection Area, classified for its populations of Hen Harrier, Merlin, Peregrine and Red Kite.
‘In Wales, bird flu cases in released Pheasants don’t trigger disease control zones, meaning if there is an outbreak in released Pheasants, shoots can continue to release birds that could further spread the disease. There is no requirement for shoots to report sick or dead released Pheasants or wild birds, nor to collect carcasses of dead released Pheasants on their land. With no licensing system in place to regulate releases of gamebirds, there is little NRW can do to help protect threatened wildlife‘.
This sounds particularly odd to me. I haven’t seen the EIR documents so can only speculate but the discovery of 875 dead Pheasants in one location, described as being “in the wild”, in May, rings alarm bells.
In my view it seems implausible, or at least highly unusual, that that density of Pheasants would be together in one location, “in the wild”, in May (so supposedly birds that were released the previous summer/autumn for shooting). The only time I’ve ever seen that number of gamebirds together ‘in the wild’ is in the weeks following release from captivity in the summer, prior to the start of the Pheasant-shooting season on 1 October. By May the following year they’ve either been shot, or run over, or have been caught up for breeding, or have dispersed into the wider countryside. I’d be interested to hear if anyone has experienced anything different.
I hope that somebody didn’t remove those diseased 875 birds from a pen, to make them appear to be last year’s ‘released’ birds (and thus defined as ‘wild’), to avoid any subsequent restriction on the movement and/or release of other gamebirds. That would be outrageously irresponsible (and also unlawful).
I hope the RSPB will publish those EIR documents to provide more clarity on the incident.
Whatever did or didn’t happen at that location, it’s clear that outbreaks of Avian Influenza in gamebirds that are left to wander around the countryside present an obvious threat to protected native species and habitats, and that the Welsh Government has had more than enough time to consider NRW’s advice and to take action.
The RSPB is asking members of the public to email the Deputy First Minister of Wales, Huw Irranca-Davies, to urge him to take that action. You don’t need to be a resident of Wales to do this – anybody can do it.
Please send (a polite) email to: Correspondence.Huw.Irranca-Davies@gov.wales asking him to implement NRW’s advice from two years ago and introduce a licensing scheme for gamebird releases.
Please note that his email address starts with the word ‘correspondence’. If you don’t use the address exactly as it’s written above, your email won’t get through.
The alleged incident took place on 12 February 2024 on a shooting estate near Blairgowrie.
Police Scotland, with the assistance of partners from the RSPB and Scottish SPCA, executed a search warrant on the estate on 29 February 2024, leading to the arrest of a 47-year-old gamekeeper and subsequent charge (see here).
The gamekeeper has pleaded not guilty and his trial was due to begin next Monday (22 September 2025).
It’s now been put back until November 2025.
NB: As this case is live, comments are turned off until legal proceedings have ended.
UPDATE 11 November 2025: Trial begins today for Scottish gamekeeper accused of killing a Goshawk on a Perthshire shooting estate (here)
It’s been a long time coming, but today Natural England has announced it is finally pulling the plug on its project to ‘reintroduce’ Hen Harriers to southern England.
It may sound odd that a pro-raptor conservationist sees this as good news, but I have long argued against this project, for a number of reasons, but predominantly because I saw it as an unhelpful distraction to tackling the real issue – that of the illegal killing of Hen Harriers on the grouse moors of northern Britain.
Natural England has been planning a so-called ‘reintroduction’ of hen harriers to southern England since 2016, as part of DEFRA’s ludicrous Hen Harrier Action Plan.
I think the proposed reintroduction project was initially supported by the pro-grouse shooting lobby because they thought that Hen Harriers could be removed from the northern grouse moors (under the equally ludicrous brood meddling scheme) and released into southern England, thus removing what they saw as a ‘problem species’ to the other end of the country, leaving them to get on with killing Red Grouse for fun (and money) without those pesky Hen Harriers ruining their sport (and profit).
An apt cartoon depicting what many of us saw as the intentions of the stakeholders in Defra’s Hen Harrier Action Plan. Cartoon by Gerard Hobley.
However, that plan was thwarted when it was pointed out that it would be a breach of international legislation to remove Hen Harriers from Special Protection Areas (SPAs) that had been designated specifically for Hen Harriers, and release them elsewhere.
I suspect that the pro-grouse shooting lobby continued to support the proposed ‘reintroduction’ into southern England because they knew that if even a handful of Hen Harriers were successful in the south, it would take the heat / attention off the continued illegal killing in the north.
We saw exactly this, when the brood meddling trial resulted in a few more pairs of Hen Harriers being allowed to breed – the ongoing illegal killing was simply brushed under the carpet by the grouse shooting lobby, and in many cases, outright denied using comically farcical logic (e.g. here) or grotesquely distorted reasoning (e.g. here).
But Hen Harriers don’t need to be ‘reintroduced’ to southern England, or anywhere else in the UK for that matter. They are perfectly capable of breeding in the wild and recolonising their former range, over a relatively short space of time, IF, and only IF, their survival isn’t curtailed by grouse moor gamekeepers shooting, trapping and poisoning them, pulling off their heads and legs, or stamping on their eggs and chicks.
Instead of wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds on this distraction project over many years, those funds could instead have been directed towards a focused enforcement plan to bring those criminals to justice.
For those interested, I’ve written extensively about this project since November 2016 and you can find links to the key blog posts here.
Here is today’s announcement from Natural England about the conclusion of the project:
NATURAL ENGLAND HEN HARRIER PROGRAMME – UPDATE TO SOUTHERN REINTRODUCTION PROJECT
By Sofía Muñoz, Senior Officer, Hen Harrier Southern Reintroduction
Background
The Hen Harrier Southern Reintroduction Project was set up in 2018 with the aim of establishing a wild, farmland-nesting population of hen harriers (Circus cyaneus) in southern England.
The hen harrier is an iconic species and one of the UK’s rarest and most persecuted birds of prey. The combination of its beauty, charisma and rarity make this a highly cherished and valued bird. Hen harriers were once common across the UK but were driven to extinction across most of the British Isles during the 1800s. More recently, Natural England and many organisations have put great effort into helping them recolonise parts of Scotland and northern England.
In England, their numbers are now estimated to have risen to 50 territorial pairs recorded in 2023, from four territorial pairs in 2016 – an increase of 1150%. Despite this increase in numbers, hen harriers remain at risk from illegal killing and disturbance, which is where human activities disrupt nesting sites, which can cause parent birds to abandon their nest and lead to failed eggs or chick deaths.
Increasing hen harrier numbers is a particularly challenging task as they have a strong inclination to return to the same place they have hatched and fledged, meaning they don’t spread areas easily.
Project timeline
In 2018, the Hen Harrier Southern Reintroduction project was conceived to encourage recolonisation of hen harriers further south in the UK. The project initially sought to translocate young hen harriers from continental Europe for release in the UK. However, collaboration between EU states and new importation rules for animals following the UK’s exit from the EU meant that translocation of young fledging birds became unfeasible due to extensive quarantine periods.
Instead, a pioneering captive conservation breeding programme was developed which focussed on releasing offspring bred in the UK from adult birds imported from France and Spain. Beginning in late 2022, this ambitious programme hoped to boost the number of hen harriers in the UK with minimal impact on wild populations. The project sought to release a minimum of 100 juvenile hen harriers over a five-year period to ensure the best chances of success.
In continental Europe, hen harriers nest on farmland which is directly comparable to much of the arable landscape across southern England. As part of the project, release pens were situated among an arable crop and these would be used to introduce chicks to the site from the captive breeding facility several weeks before fledging. It was hoped that this would enable them to familiarise themselves with the habitat and area around the release site, leading to them returning to breed in this same location in subsequent years.
Latest situation
The third breeding season for the captive birds began in 2025. While the adult birds had not bred successfully in the first two years of the programme, advances in their breeding behaviour over the two years (2023; 2024) had been noted. This meant that the team were optimistic that that things were moving in the right direction to eventually produce chicks for release. However, to the team’s disappointment, the females unfortunately laid infertile eggs in 2025, meaning that no chicks would be released this year.
Following a thorough review, it has become clear that Natural England is no longer in a position to provide the long-term funding and resource needed to continue delivering the Hen Harrier Southern Reintroduction project, despite the progress to date. The difficult decision has therefore been made to conclude this project.
The welfare of the hen harriers held in captivity for the conservation breeding programme remains the priority for the project through its closing phase. A number of options exist for the birds, and these will be explored in full. As they are unsuitable for release into the wild, they will be transferred into the care of a suitable host organisation. Organisations will be considered suitable where they are able to ensure the ongoing welfare of the birds for the remainder of their natural lives. In addition, Natural England would not preclude continuation of the conservation breeding programme under the leadership of the chosen organisation if the priority of welfare is maintained.
Informing future conservation
Knowledge acquired through the delivery of this project can help to inform other conservation projects and expand our understanding of hen harrier biology. We have, for instance, gained a deeper insight into the health, genetics, and migratory patterns of hen harriers.
We would like to express our gratitude to all our partners, who have contributed their time, expertise, and commitment to this project over the years.
ENDS
I’ve asked Natural England for a copy of what it calls its “thorough review” of this failed project.
I’ll report if/when Natural England sends it to me.
Don’t hold your breath though, I’m still waiting for NE to send me a copy of its Hen Harrier Brood Meddling Social Science report that I asked for in April 2025 (here).
Oh, and we’re STILL waiting for NE to release this year’s Hen Harrier breeding figures, AND to release the details of at least seven post-mortem reports on dead Hen Harriers, many of them dating back over a year (here). More commentary on that from me to come shortly…
This is a guest blog written by conservation campaigner and author Bob Berzins who has written previously on this blog here, here, here, here, here, here, hereandhere.
The recent changes to moorland burning regulations have been widely publicised as a ban on burning. But all that’s happened is the prohibition on burning vegetation where peat soils are 40cm or more has been changed to 30cm. This will reduce areas where burning can take place and is a welcome change, but as an illustration, around 50% of the grouse moors surrounding Sheffield can still be burnt. This guest blog takes a closer look at what that means and the effects that will continue.
Incinerated medicated grit station and ash-filled controlled burn site on shallow peat. Yet gamekeepers still insist their “cool burns” would leave a Mars Bar untouched. Such intensive hot burning is in breach of moorland management plans and leaves the estate open to prosecution for an alleged breach of Section 28 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act which is supposed to protect SSSI conservation sites. However, Natural England rarely takes such enforcement action and these burns continue. This lack of enforcement is a common theme throughout grouse moor management.
Blanket biased reporting
Shame on the BBC for the prominence given to pro-shooting interests in the recent BBC News website article ‘Misinformation is creating a moorland tinderbox’, a result of the power and influence of grouse shooting lobbyists. In this piece, Tom Aspinall, RSPB Senior Policy Officer for Uplands, says peatlands are, or “should be”, inherently wet.
Something like this:
Healthy blanket bog with sphagnum, cotton grass, a little heather, a lot of water and impossible to burn
It’s important to remember the peat soils which support all the heather filled grouse moors, were formed in conditions as wet as this. Peat forms very slowly in the anaerobic heart of sphagnum mounds. This extremely wet ecosystem is the natural state of all our upland moors.
Yet we have University of York Associate Professor Andreas Heinemeyer telling us, “Re-wetting and restoring peatlands is good but it won’t necessarily make them resilient to wildfires, especially under climate-change scenarios, which clearly point out that lots of heather might still be there”.
Really?
It’s the repeated cycle of controlled burning that dries the peat, providing ideal conditions for yet more heather to grow.
Tom Aspinall tells us: “Peatland landscapes are the best means of mitigation against the risks of fire because they hold water.
“The problem with burning to try and reduce fire risk is that you put yourself in the perpetual cycle of increased fire risk, because the vegetation that grows after a burn is generally heather and heather is an oily plant, so it’s very volatile.
“When you re-wet or diversify, you’ve got a different range of plants so you break up that continuous fuel and you can affect the ability of fires to spread“.
Shooters drool over Andreas Heinemeyer’s study Protecting our Peatlands not only as justification for extensive moorland burning but as the only management tool that results in healthy moorland. But if I’ve understood his University of York report, the study actually found that land left untouched absorbed carbon whereas burnt or mown areas emitted carbon over the study period. But this data was apparently disregarded because heather beetle was present (see page 14 of the report).
The effects of heather beetle
However, outbreaks of heather beetle are not just an inconvenience to be airbrushed out of a study, but a reality in our climate-changed world. Right now Peak District grouse moors have been severely affected by heather beetle. A walk over an intensively burnt and mown grouse moor reveals swathes of dead and dying heather with little or no insect or bird life.
According to Heinemeyer, these areas are emitting dangerous amounts of carbon adding to our climate emergency. But what Heinemeyer’s study has highlighted is the reality of intensive moorland management: a huge amount of burning leads to burnt areas being re-colonised by a monoculture of heather (handy for feeding grouse) but highly susceptible to devastating heather beetle attacks creating a toxic environment devoid of life. Whereas areas basically left alone are pretty much immune to heather beetle attacks.
In addition, the York University study received funding from the Moorland Association and British Association of Shooting and Conservation (BASC). The concept of ‘sponsorship bias’ in relation to studies on UK moorland burning has been examined by Professors Lee Brown and Joseph Holden of Leeds University and is well worth a read, here.
Smoke – Air pollution and Health
Shooting organisations and the media consistently fail to consider the instant consequence of moorland burning: huge amounts of acrid smoke settling over local communities resulting in levels of particulate air pollution with clear and dangerous effects on health.
Yet gamekeepers are desperate to continue this working practice.
Not so for members of the public, our local authorities and elected representatives. Green MPs are submitting these questions to Defra:
Pursuant to UIN HL2512 tabled on 12 October 2022, does this Government plan to introduce monitoring of the air pollution and consequent health impacts of heather burning for grouse shooting on adjoining communities during the burning season, where the previous Government declined to do so?
What consideration has been given to enhancing local authorities’ powers to monitor and act on the air pollution and consequent health impacts of heather burning for grouse shooting on adjoining communities during the burning season?
Smoke pollution from moorland burning is unregulated because Local Authorities have limited powers under the Environment Act 1990 related to nuisance burning. Moorland burning is licensed by Natural England and a land manager would merely have to argue they’d taken reasonable precautions for any enforcement action to be thrown out of court.
So the new 30cm regulations do not prevent a repeat of this devastating incident and Sheffield Council is powerless to take any action over the smoke pollution.
We’ve had 4 years of a ban on burning over 40cm peat but only two prosecutions (here & here), despite a huge number of detailed reports of illegal burning such as this on Sheffield moorland in autumn 2024:
Law-makers have been made well aware of this lack of enforcement, so will a ban on burning 30cm peat be any different? I’m not hopeful. But you can play your part by reporting all moorland burning using the RSPB’s Report a Burn App here.
Summary
The current situation is pretty much this:
The latest regulations are a slap in the face for moorland owners. Peatland ecology and the damage caused by burning is no longer a niche academic interest and awareness extends way further.
Yet moorland owners continue to burn huge swathes of our uplands.
There’s no real enforcement of burning over 40cm+ peat and that’s unlikely to change for the new 30cm+ regulations.
Natural England don’t take enforcement action for damage to conservation sites as a result of illegal burning.
Local Authorities are powerless to prevent smoke pollution from moorland burning. The smoke produced from heather burning is unregulated.
Any reduction in the amount of burning is welcome but we need a complete ban.
Raptor Persecution UK 