Following yesterday’s news of a successful Hen Harrier breeding attempt this year on National Trust-owned moorland in the Peak District National Park (here), Craig Best, the NT’s General Manager in the High Peak, was interviewed on BBC Radio Derby about the significance of the successful nest and the importance of satellite-tagging the young birds (this year’s two Peak District tags have been paid for by the National Trust and the Peak District National Park).
Craig Best, National Trust General Manager, High Peak (photo supplied)
Craig is well known as an experienced, committed and passionate advocate for restoring the uplands and is the driving force behind significant & welcome changes in how the NT’s moorlands are managed in the High Peak (e.g. see here, here, here and here for earlier blogs).
He’s also not someone who pretends that illegal raptor persecution isn’t an ongoing issue and for that alone, he deserves much kudos.
The interview on BBC Radio Derby with host Becky Measures is just four minutes long and appears to be a cut from a wider conversation, but Craig gets his point across about Hen Harrier persecution. It can be heard here and is available on BBC Sounds for a year.
Here’s the transcript:
Craig Best: It’s brilliant that we’re seeing Hen Harriers nest on our land, on National Trust land in the High Peak, so yeah, you’re right, these birds suffer persecution, in fact they’re the most persecuted bird of prey in the UK.
Becky Measures: Why?
Craig Best: Well, all these birds nest on open moorland in really remote places, and what we’re finding is the vast majority of persecution happens on or near to land managed for grouse shooting. Hen Harriers obviously have to eat, so they’ll eat small mammals such as voles and shrews, but they’ll also take chicks of birds, and I’m sure they will take grouse chicks as well, so unfortunately these birds suffer high levels of persecution across the UK and they’re quite often shot.
Becky Measures: So how does tagging, then, protect them?
Craig Best: Yeah, so interestingly, we tag these birds, which is brilliant because it gives us data on where they fly, and some of these birds fly across the UK, we’ve even had some of the Hen Harriers that we’ve tagged in the past fly to places like France, so they cover huge distances, that gives us lots of information, it gives us information where they roost, where they might be feeding, but importantly, these tags are very expensive, they’re about a thousand quid each, but importantly they track the birds and when the bird ‘mysteriously disappears’ we’ve got some idea where that happens.
Beck Measures: Right, ok, so you’re able to kind of keep an eye on them and know what their movements are. It must be difficult to get the tags on them, though?
Craig Best: Yeah, so the tags are, I mean the people who do it are licenced by Natural England and we’re working really closely with our colleagues at the RSPB, but also there’s a volunteer group in the Peak District called the Peak District Raptor Group and all these individuals are experts, and when the birds are young on the nest, not able to fly, we approach them and carefully apply the tag.
But the tag provides much needed protection, so they’re less likely to be shot because if that tag stops working, or we find it, you know we don’t get the tag movements, clearly that could link to a persecution incident. Not always, sometimes these birds, like many other animals do, die naturally, but quite often what we’re finding across the UK and in the Peak District and places like North Yorkshire, these birds are persecuted and are shot in these remote areas and it’s very much linked to grouse shooting.
We invest millions in the upland landscape in the High Peak to restore our peatlands, restore the peat, you know, this landscape is fantastic for our drinking water, a lot of rain falls on our drinking water so whether you live in Sheffield or Manchester, that’s where it comes from, and we restore the landscape by establishing trees, because these places are just fantastic for nature and provide lots of services, such as flood risk reductions for people’s homes and businesses, but of course we invest this money and these pinnacle species such as Hen Harriers should be in much greater numbers. I think there’s something in order of 30-40 breeding pairs across the UK* so they’re really at risk of extinction if this persecution continues, but because we invest so much money, it’d be such a shame to not have these spectacular birds flying around and you know, like you referenced earlier on, your listeners and many people will have watched Springwatch and we saw a pair of Hen Harriers feeding and flying around and they’re just beautiful to look at and of course they have the right to exist like many other animals in the Peak District.
ENDS
*Craig was referring to England, not the UK. In 2024 there was a total of 34 Hen Harrier breeding attempts in England, of which 25 were successful, which is lower than the last two years, according to Natural England.
Press release from National Trust (18 August 2025)
LATEST HEN HARRIER FLEDGLINGS RECEIVE PROTECTIVE SATELLITE TAGS IN THE PEAK DISTRICT
Two hen harrier chicks from a nest found on National Trust land, raised by the adult birds featured on Springwatch, have been tagged to protect them from persecution.
The RSPB tagged the chicks thanks to support from the National Trust and the Peak District National Park, and with the help of the Peak District Raptor Study Group.
Satellite tagging provides a valuable insight into the preferences and behaviour of these birds, as well as building vital evidence to enable their protection.
Hen harriers are one of the UK’s most persecuted birds.
Two hen harrier chicks, hatched from a nest on moorland in the care of the National Trust in the Peak District, have been fitted with satellite tags by the RSPB to protect them from persecution1.
At the same time as providing location data, the satellite tags will provide vital information about the behaviour of this threatened species and an insight into roosting, breeding and foraging sites. The tried and tested method also helps to gather evidence in the fight against criminal activity. Each year in England, around 30 chicks are fitted with these tags.
Specially trained officers from the RSPB fitted the tags, thanks to funding from the National Trust and the Peak District National Park. The organisations are working together along with the Peak District Raptor Study Group to give birds of prey like Hen Harriers the best chance of survival in the area.
The chicks tagged were part of a brood of three chicks from the same nest who have now successfully fledged. They are the offspring of the adult birds which featured on the BBC’s Springwatch earlier this year, spectacularly passing food mid-air.
Successful Hen Harrier breeding attempt on National Trust moorland in Peak District National Park. Photo: Peak District Raptor Study Group
The news of the successful nest has been met with cautious celebration by the conservation partners involved, as the presence of nests and fledging chicks shows efforts to create the right habitats for the birds are taking effect2. However, there is still much to do to protect this important bird of prey from the threats it faces from habitat loss and persecution.
This is the eighth nest attempt to have been recorded over the past five years in the Peak District. Last year there were only 34 nests in the UK compared to 49 in 2022. There are only around 30-40 breeding pairs of hen harriers in England.
Craig Best, General Manager in the Peak District at the National Trust said:
“We have been working hard with our partners to create ideal habitats to attract red-listed birds and provide good homes for them when they move to moorland landscapes over the spring and summer. A significant amount of time and investment is made to do this. These birds need moorland where you find a variety of plants and animals. We’re restoring peatland and ensuring wetlands and grasslands can host a good mix of species which means these habitats become a good place for small birds and voles too, which are a vital food for hen harriers and their young.
“It is wonderful to see successful nests on the land in our care because it is a good indicator that our work is providing them with the conditions they need. However, we need to be cautious and vigilant because despite being legally protected, persecution is still one of the biggest threats to these special birds of prey in the Peak District and across the UK.
“This is harder to address, but we’re taking action to combat these illegal practices. We’re working closely with our partners in the Police, Statutory Agencies, the Raptor Monitoring Group and the RSPB. One way we do this is by supporting tagging the birds and tracking their movements.
“I am delighted that we have been able to give these two chicks this extra protection, and that the data they provide will provide evidence to tackle illegal activity as well as support our conservation efforts.”
One of the two Hen Harrier chicks being satellite-tagged on National Trust moorland in Peak District National Park. Photo by Ant Messenger
Mark Thomas, Head of Investigations at the RSPB said:
“Satellite-tagging of Hen Harriers has been a game changer; it tells us what habitats the birds are using and informs us of the place and reason for any mortality. For a persecuted species this is vital, to inform police investigations, to document associated land uses and to lobby for policy outcomes that aim to provide a better future. The RSPB believes that is through the licensing of grouse shooting, a pragmatic solution to tackle the record high levels of illegal killing in the last five years.”
For example, a recent successful tracking of another hen harrier, fitted with a satellite tag by Natural England on National Trust land in 2022, also returned to the Peak District earlier this year. The tracking data shows the extensive flight-path of the bird, which travels down to Cornwall during the winter months, before returning to the Peak District each summer, flying approximately over 550 miles between wintering sites and breeding grounds and choosing to spend time in the moorland habitat, not far from where it fledged, after stopping off in Wales along the way.
Phil Mulligan, Chief Executive Officer at the Peak District National Park said:
“It is vital for our ecosystems and the health of the landscape in the Peak District National Park that we do all that we can to welcome and protect these stunning birds of prey. I look forward to the day when there is a healthy population of hen harriers here. It is great to hear that hen harriers which started their life in the Peak District will help us gather important data to improve the chances of the species in the future.”
Editor’s notes:
Despite having the highest level of protection under UK law and a designated species of high conservation concern, Hen Harriers are being illegally killed in the UK.
In the last five years, the number of confirmed and suspected Hen Harrier persecution incidents has increased with 102 recorded between 2020 and 2024. 89% of these incidents took place in northern England. 2023 was notably the worst year on record with 34 Hen Harriers confirmed to have been killed or disappearing under suspicious circumstances. The impact of these crimes is most evident in England with numbers recorded in 2024 representing only one tenth of the upper estimate of potential breeding pairs for England (323-340 pairs) as outlined by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee Report in 2011. Information taken from Hen Harriers in the Firing Line – RSPB report 2025.
2. Work undertaken by the National Trust includes cutting heather to allow a more diverse range of moorland plants such as sphagnum moss, bilberry and cottongrass to grow, which helps attract the different insects and small mammals which the birds rely upon for food. The charity is also working closely with tenants to ensure their land management practices support the vision for more birds of prey in the area.
ENDS
UPDATE 20 August 2025: Hen Harrier persecution “is very much linked to grouse shooting” – Craig Best, National Trust General Manager, Peak District (here)
One of the translocated Golden Eagles in southern Scotland has bred with one of ‘our’ wild satellite-tagged eagles, resulting in the successful fledging of a male eaglet.
This is the first fledging event from a nest of one of the translocated eagles and marks a major milestone for the South Scotland Golden Eagle Project.
The chick has been named ‘Princeling’ by Sir David Attenborough.
Golden Eagle chick ‘Princeling’ having a satellite tag fitted (Photo copyright Ian Georgeson)
The breeding pair got together in 2024 and built up a nest but didn’t breed. That’s not unusual behaviour for young Golden Eagles who can take up to six years to mature, although in areas where there’s little competition for territories (e.g. through depletion of the population by persecution, as in south Scotland), breeding can happen much earlier.
Emma, the female, had been translocated to south Scotland in 2021 and was named by the Scottish Government’s then Biodiversity Minister, Lorna Slater MSP, in memory of the women’s rights and equality advocate, Emma Ritch.
Keith, the male, fledged from a wild nest in Dumfries & Galloway in 2018 and was named Keith after a member of the local Raptor Study Group. He was satellite-tagged as part of a project run by RPUK and Chris Packham in association with experts from the Scottish Raptor Study Group and we’ve been tracking his movements ever since.
Here he is prior to fledging in 2018 (Keith is on the right, one of his parents on the left). This is footage from a nest camera which are routinely installed (under licence) at nest sites to help researchers monitor young eagles after they’ve been fitted with a satellite tag to ensure the tag/harness is not causing any health or welfare issues.
Photo copyright Scottish Raptor Study Group
After dispersing from his natal territory in November 2018, Keith hung around in Dumfries & Galloway for a few months before then suddenly making a beeline for the border and in to England. He stayed in Northumberland for a while (and was joined by at least one other tagged Golden Eagle that had been translocated to south Scotland) before heading back in to Scotland and heading over to his old haunts in SW Scotland before eventually finding his own territory and settling there in October 2023.
After their unsuccessful breeding attempt in spring 2024, Keith and Emma were photographed together in October 2024 on a camera trap at a food platform provided by the South Scotland Golden Eagle Project. They looked to be in excellent condition:
Keith on the right, with the much larger female Emma. Photo copyright South Scotland Golden Eagle Project
The location of their successful breeding attempt this year has had to remain a secret because, as we’ve seen, (here and here) Golden Eagles, along with many other raptor species, still face the threat of illegal persecution in this region and beyond.
I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard that gamebird shooting, whether it be Red Grouse, Pheasant or Red-legged Partridge shooting, and all its associated ‘management’ is vital for rural community cohesion and it’s only so-called ‘Townies’ that don’t understand and want to protest about it.
As with most things claimed by the gamebird shooting industry, it’s not true.
Over recent years a number of local rural communities in England (particularly across Yorkshire) and Scotland have rejected this fictional romanticism of their lives and have found the courage, often in the face of intimidation from dark powerful forces, to voice their dissent.
Now it’s happening in Wales, too.
The following article was published by The Telegraph last week:
A village is locked in dispute with wealthy tourists who pay more than £3,000 for a day’s pheasant shooting.
Residents in Pennal, a community of 404 in Snowdonia, North Wales, claim the shoots have set “neighbour against neighbour”, and led to claims of intimidation and harassment.
Some villagers have even complained of dead foxes dumped in their gardens.
But others, who support shooting, said “incomers” to the village were behind the complaints, and told them to “move back to where they came from” if they don’t like it.
The shoots, run by Cambrian Birds on the Pennal Estate, are marketed as “the most talked-about in the UK” for their “high-quality driven pheasants and partridges along with top class hospitality”.
Guests are promised at least four drives a day, and a two-course meal or afternoon tea.
But an anonymous survey in the village uncovered anger at what some locals see as a “takeover” by “large commercial shoots”.
One resident said: “Disharmony and division within our once peaceful village. Most people I speak to in the village hate what’s happening but are afraid to publicly voice their concerns for fear of retribution or escalating the division further.
“These fears are evident in that a local lady in her seventies living alone has now had two healthy looking but dead foxes put in her garden with loud bangs on her windows in the night. Police were informed, but little action.”
Another villager said there had been “no consultation with village residents” before it was “taken over”.
The same resident complained of “acts of intimidation towards people who speak up”, alleging there had been “shooting across gardens late at night” and even “dead foxes dumped on one person’s land”.
It is not known who is behind these alleged “acts of intimidation”.
Other residents said they felt pressured to take sides.
“Several residents asked me to declare whether I was with or against the shooting,” complained one, adding: “One person even told me who I should talk to and who not.”
They claimed that some villagers were now considering “moving away” as a result of the disputes.
But supporters argued the shoots bring vital income to the rural economy, and accused critics of being “incomers”, and part of the “anti-shooting brigade”.
A lifelong resident, who described themselves as “Pennal born and bred”, said: “Cambrian Birds pays a decent rent to the hill farmers of Pennal, helping in many cases, young families to stay and work the land. Young families move into the area, helping the local school.”
The resident said that if the “anti-shooting brigade” didn’t like it they should “move back to where they came from”.
They likened it to “buying a house next door to a pub and then complaining about the noise of throwing-out time”.
Cambrian Birds has been approached for comment.
ENDS
The Telegraph article was likely inspired by an article in Cambrian News on 23 July 2025 about a village protest held against the Cambrian Birds shoot at Pennal.
Local villagers protest about the Pheasant shoot. Photo supplied to Cambrian News
This isn’t the villagers’ first protest against Cambrian Bird’s game-rearing and shooting business. In January this year they featured in an article in the Powys County Times about how they’d erected banners and sprayed ‘crime-scene’-type silhouettes of Pheasants on village roads as part of their protest:
Image supplied to Powys County Times
Some of you may recognise the name ‘Cambrian Birds’. Its associated business, ‘Cambrian Shooting’, hit the headlines in January 2022 when the League Against Cruel Sports published covert video footage showing someone from the shoot at Dyfi Falls (one of six shoots managed by Cambrian Sporting) chucking at least 45 shot Pheasant and Red-legged Partridge carcasses down a mineshaft (here).
A statement from the company later confirmed that the person filmed was one of their gamekeepers. They said he had been ‘severely reprimanded‘ and that ‘he no longer works for the company‘ (here).
Natural Resources Wales launched an investigation into the possible pollution and contamination of the river close to the site where the mass gamebird dumping took place but as far as I can tell, nothing ever came of it.
To read more about the Dyfi Falls shoot, this blog by Jeremy Moore, a leading Welsh environmental photographer, is fascinating.
The Hawk & Owl Trust, and its Chief Operations Director, Adrian Blumfield, have been slammed by an employment tribunal about the unfair dismissal of long-term employee, Nigel Middleton.
Nigel, a well-respected naturalist, raptor specialist and the now former Conservation Officer at the Hawk & Owl Trust (HOT), was amongst other things responsible for wardening the HOT’s Sculthorpe Moor Nature Reserve in Norfolk, a reserve he founded with the late David Cobham and which opened to the public in 2003.
On 5th May 2023, Nigel received a letter from the HOT informing him that he’d been dismissed with immediate effect as he’d been made redundant.
Nigel Middleton (Photo supplied)
Blog readers may recall a ‘revolt’ against the Hawk & Owl Trust in July 2023 by disgruntled life members and volunteers of the HOT, who held a peaceful protest at the HOT HQ (see here and here) and made a formal complaint to the Charity Commission about what they believed was “poor management” of the organisation, following Nigel’s dismissal and the unusual departure of other staff.
The Charity Commission later stated:
“We carefully considered concerns raised with us about the governance of The Hawk and Owl Trust. Based on the information provided, we determined that there is no regulatory role for us at this time“.
The Hawk & Owl Trust’s Chief Operations Director Adrian Blumfield was quoted in the press at the time:
“We understand that a small number of people previously connected with the charity are resistant to the positive progress and changes that have been made.
“Any criticism of the charity is completely unwarranted, misplaced and risks undermining the work being undertaken“.
Some HOT volunteers later said they’d been banned from the HOT’s Sculthorpe Moor Reserve after staging the protest.
Nigel lodged legal proceedings for unfair dismissal against the Hawk & Owl Trust and Adrian Blumfield on 3 August 2023 and a six-day tribunal hearing took place in June/July 2025 before an employment judge, M. Warren. Nigel was supported during each day of the hearing by many of the ex-volunteers and ex-members of staff that Adrian Blumfield had banned from Sculthorpe Moor Nature Reserve.
A reserved judgement was handed down on 12 August 2025 by Judge Warren who stated:
“There was no potentially fair reason for dismissal and therefore Mr Middleton’s complaint of unfair dismissal succeeds. Had there been a potentially fair reason, the procedural failings set out above would inevitably have led to a conclusion that the dismissal was unfair in any event“.
The issue of compensation for Nigel will be determined at a future date.
Here is some background detail about the whole sorry mess:
The tribunal heard that Nigel had grown concerned about the way Adrian Blumfield was managing Sculthorpe Moor Nature Reserve and in November 2022 had approached Dr Andrew McCulloch, the Chair of the Hawk and Owl Trust, to voice his concerns.
Dr McCulloch is also the Chair of ‘Social Work England’ and, as he wrote in his witness statement to the tribunal, has “Years of experience in the Civil Service achieving the grade of Deputy Director, followed by eleven years’ experience as Chief Executive of a larger nationally well known charity… (and) that he had over 40 years of experience on Boards and Committees.”
Nigel had hoped that Dr McCulloch would hear his concerns and those of other HOT employees, members and local people, which Nigel had sent on to him.
Despite asking for these disclosures to remain private, Judge Warren states in his tribunal ruling:
“ We (the Tribunal) glean that it seems Dr McCulloch must have in some way, informed Mr Blumfield that Mr Middleton had raised with him matters that would need to be discussed. Dr McCulloch denied this in cross examination. We did not find his denial convincing. The timing of Mr Blumfield’s [subsequent] actions are a remarkable coincidence. We conclude that Dr McCulloch must have made Mr Blumfield aware that Mr Middleton had raised matters about him.”
Nigel argues that shortly afterwards he was subjected to a ‘catalogue of persecution’.
‘People can be a pain in the arse’
In February 2023, and a few days after undergoing major surgery, Nigel received a letter from Adrian Blumfield, inviting him to discuss the future of his employment, the timing of which Judge Warren wrote, “was crass“.
A formal grievance was raised by Nigel which was to be heard by Peter Lawrence of Human Capital Department, the HOT’s human resource advisor whose own advertising states that, ‘People can be a pain in the arse‘.
Human Capital Department advert for business services
Before he had even held Nigel’s grievance hearing, Mr Lawrence wrote to Adrian Blumfield and Dr McCulloch as follows:
“It might be better if I were to deliver the decision on Friday am to show that it has been considered carefully.”
Judge Warren’s tribunal finding states that,
“The foregoing has led us to conclude that a campaign against Mr Middleton was launched by Mr Blumfield because he came to learn that Mr Middleton had raised concerns about him.
“It was clear that Mr Blumfield was aiming to ultimately remove Mr Middleton from the business.
“Dr McCulloch had also formed the view, influenced by Mr Blumfield, that Mr Middleton must go. He wrote of needing to get the Board, “behind the direction of travel”.
‘Smelling a rat’
In an email about the grievance procedure from Mr Lawrence to Adrian Blumfield, and then sent to Dr McCulloch, it speaks of Nigel potentially “smelling a rat”. Judge Warren stated that:
“Mr Blumfield and Dr McCulloch told (the tribunal) in evidence that they were unable to explain what the, “rat” was that Mr Middleton might smell.”
Nigel’s grievance against the HOT about the timing of Adrian Blumfield’s letter inviting him to discuss his employment future was not upheld by Ian Lawrence, and although Mr Lawrence admitted that in hindsight, the timing was “ill-timed“, he did not consider that it warranted an apology as Nigel had requested.
However, in the tribunal finding, Judge Warren states:
“The letter inviting Mr Middleton to discuss his employment future whilst he was recovering from an operation, as not warranting an apology, is surprising, wrong and indicative of the Respondent’s mindset.”
Shortly after the grievance hearing, Adrian Blumfield invited Nigel to attend a disciplinary hearing about alleged gross misconduct; Blumfield had written a report alleging four counts but had not met with Nigel or any other member of staff during the preparation of the report. The following day, Nigel received a letter advising him that he’d been suspended.
During the tribunal, Blumfield admitted that not one of the purported disciplinary charges were deemed ‘gross misconduct’ as he had apparently told the HOT Trustees.
Nigel had asked that the disciplinary hearing be postponed for seven days as he was unwell, but this request was refused; a refusal which the tribunal decided was unfair.
Nigel had been told that the disciplinary hearing would go ahead without him. He heard nothing for weeks until he was later told that the process had not gone ahead – again deemed unfair by the tribunal.
‘Spurious’
The following month, Adrian Blumfield sent a letter to Nigel informing him he was at risk of redundancy, a claim which the tribunal decided was ‘spurious’, and that a 7-day redundancy consultation process was underway.
At this point, Nigel was still suspended from work and the disciplinary process was pending.
On 4 May 2023, solicitors acting on behalf of Nigel emailed Mr Lawrence of Human Capital Department to explain that Nigel could not engage in meaningful consultation about redundancy until he was able to understand the arrangements for the ongoing disciplinary process. Further, she pointed out that Nigel was on annual leave until 12 May 2023 and would not engage in consultation during that period.
There followed correspondence in which it was suggested that Nigel was not on annual leave. His solicitor produced a screen shot of the HOT’s management system leave calendar showing that he was indeed on pre-arranged leave.
On 5 May 2023, Nigel received a letter informing him that notice he attend a disciplinary hearing was withdrawn. Twenty minutes later, he received a letter informing him that he was dismissed with immediate effect, saying that he had refused to attend a meeting, would not discuss matters with them and they therefore had no alternative but to make his position redundant.
The tribunal finding notes that, “Informing Mr Middleton that he was no longer subject to disciplinary action and then 20 minutes later, informing him that he was dismissed with immediate effect, because he was redundant, was unfair.“
‘A woeful tale of unfairness in process’ and ‘a sham’
The written judgement from Judge Warren concludes:
“In the Tribunal’s judgement, redundancy as a purported reason for dismissal was nothing more than a sham”
and
“The reason for Mr Middleton’s dismissal was that he had complained about Mr Blumfield’s management style“
and
“The procedure followed by the Respondent [Hawk & Owl Trust] in dismissing Mr Middleton was a woeful tale of unfairness in process“.
And just in case anyone still doubts the petty and vindictive behaviour of the HOT ‘leadership’…
On 23 May 2023, solicitors acting on instructions from Adrian Blumfield wrote to Nigel’s daughter. She had grazed cattle on the Trust’s land since 2005 – two steers which were regarded as family pets. The solicitor’s letter suggested that these animals were on the Trust’s property without knowledge or permission and demanded that they remove them within ten days. They warned that if they did not comply, County Court proceedings would be issued for trespass, resulting in a judgement that would be recorded on the register for Orders, Judgements and Fines.
What a bloody shame. When I was taking my first tentative steps in to the world of raptor research and conservation, many years ago, the Hawk & Owl Trust was widely admired as one of the few UK-based charities dedicated to birds of prey and owls.
Its former director, Colin Shawyer, was one of those guys whose expertise was unrivalled and in demand and yet he still found the time to answer my letters about identifying prey remains I’d found inside pellets and he encouraged me to get involved with a Barn Owl monitoring project being run by Sue and Richard Dewar on behalf of the HOT. Those early field experiences and opportunities were instrumental to my career choice.
It’s hard to imagine that level of support and encouragement being offered to someone under the current management regime.
Things started to fall apart for the HOT ten years ago in 2014/2015 when it decided, under the direction of then Chair Philip Merricks, to get into bed with the grouse shooting industry and support the Hen Harrier Brood Meddling sham.
That decision, and the HOT’s subsequent behaviour, cost the HOT dearly. It lost its president (Chris Packham) and it lost the support and respect of many in the conservation world.
The banning of many loyal volunteers and members from the HOT’s Sculthorpe Moor Nature Reserve in 2023, now followed by an employment tribunal’s damning conclusion about the HOT’s treatment of an outstanding and long-serving member of staff, leave the reputation of the HOT in the gutter.
Nigel has been vindicated and he’s better off being as far away as possible from this toxic, dysfunctional outfit. I wish him all the best in his future ventures.
BBC Radio 4’s Farming Today programme (aired yesterday, 14 August 2025) included an extended feature on the current row about the release of gamebirds (Pheasants & Red-legged Partridges) on or near protected areas during national concern over Avian Flu outbreaks.
As many of you will know, Defra sensibly withdrew General Licence 45 in March this year – this is the licence under which restricted numbers of gamebirds (Pheasants and Red-legged Partridges) can be released on or within 500m of Special Protection Areas – which was withdrawn due to Defra’s legitimate concerns about the spread of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI).
Instead of being able to use GL45 this year, Natural England said that gamebird shoots could apply for individual licences to release gamebirds on or close to SPAs, but that only some licences would be permitted and only with a delayed release date for the poults, whereas licences for many other SPAs would be unlikely to be issued at all.
Released Pheasants can spread highly contagious Avian Flu across the countryside. Photo: Ruth Tingay
On yesterday’s Farming Today programme, Hugh Carter, Chairman and Director of the Bulford & Tidworth Garrison shoot, whose licence application to release gamebirds on Salisbury Plain this year has been refused by Natural England, argued that the decision means the shoot is at risk of closure.
Interestingly, the same argument was used by the same shoot two years ago when its licence application to release who-knows-how-many thousands of non-native gamebirds was also refused (see here).
Also on the programme was Katie-Jo Luxton, Global Conservation Director at the RSPB, who made the case for all gamebird releases to be licensed, not just those on or close to protected areas, and she made the point that the current restrictions don’t include the release of Mallards for shooting, of which there’s a rough estimation of 2.5 million released each year. Katie-Jo argued that Mallards probably pose an even higher risk of transmitting Bird Flu than Pheasants and Red-legged Partridges so should also be restricted from being released on or close to protected areas during the current outbreaks of HPAI.
Marnie Lovejoy, Deputy Director of Conservation at BASC was also interviewed, and she argued that the restrictions on the releasing of gamebirds should be lifted because “biosecurity is taken very seriously on game farms and game shoots“.
I’m not sure on what evidence she is basing this assertion, given that shooting estates are failing to declare millions of Pheasants that are bred, reared and released in to the countryside (see here).
Even if Marnie’s claim is true, biosecurity measures didn’t prevent an outbreak of HPAI at a game bird breeding facility in North Yorkshire in March this year (here) and nor did it prevent an outbreak on a Pheasant shoot in Exmoor National Park in July this year (here).
Not much evidence of biosecurity measures in place at this Pheasant release pen. Photo: Ruth Tingay
And when asked by presenter Charlotte Smith about the risk of making the Bird Flu outbreak situation worse by releasing thousands/millions of gamebirds, Marnie’s response was to argue that there are always risks posed by ‘almost any countryside activity‘ including ‘walking your dogs in the countryside‘ and ‘having visitors on bird reserves‘.
I’m not sure that these are comparable levels of risk!
Farming Today episode can be heard here (starts at 04.36) and is available for the next 28 days.
UPDATE 21 August 2025: Defra announces additional biosecurity measures for gamebird releases amidst heightened risk of Avian Influenza (here)
The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority (YDNPA) has announced it is terminating the Yorkshire Dales National Park Bird of Prey Partnership because it’s been ‘unsuccessful’ at tackling crimes against raptors.
One of many driven grouse moors in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. Photo by Ruth Tingay
The Yorkshire Dales Bird of Prey Partnership was established in 2020 with representatives from the grouse-shooting industry, the raptor conservation community, RSPB, Natural England, Police, the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority and the Nidderdale AONB (now renamed Nidderdale National Landscape) Authority.
The Yorkshire Dales ‘partnership’ was modelled on the similar (now disbanded) ‘Bird of Prey Partnership’ in the Peak District National Park, which, unsurprisingly given the participants from the grouse-shooting industry, was an abject failure (see here).
It’s no surprise to me that the Yorkshire Dales ‘partnership’ has also failed. Two of the ‘partners’ had already walked away (the RSPB in 2023 here and the Northern England Raptor Forum in 2024 here), both citing familiar complaints about the behaviour of another ‘partner’, the grouse moor owners’ lobby group, The Moorland Association.
What is surprising, but is very welcome, is that the YDNPA has closed down the partnership after five years, instead of letting it limp on pointlessly for 12 years like the Peak District National Park Authority did, in the futile hope that progress would come.
Instead, the YDNPA says it will be ‘pursuing a different approach’ to tackling the illegal killing of raptors in the Dales.
It looks like the YDNPA is taking heed of the views of residents and visitor alike, who repeatedly cite illegal raptor persecution as one of their highest concerns about the Yorkshire Dales National Park.
I blogged last week about how the new five-year Management Plan for the YDNP made no mention of the ‘partnership’ in its work plan but instead it had proposed, ‘Support implementation of the national Wildlife Crime Strategy to end the illegal killing and disturbance of birds of prey and other wildlife by 2028′.
That has been confirmed in a press release from the YDNPA:
The police’s National Wildlife Crime Strategy (2025-2028) has not yet been published so we’ll have to wait and see what, if anything, is ‘new’ in there in terms of a strategy for tackling the illegal persecution of birds of prey and how the YDNPA can help support it.
In the meantime, congratulations to David Butterworth, Chief Executive of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, for not accepting the status quo – I imagine that’s not a comfortable position to be in.
UPDATE 4 September 2025: Statement from Northern England Raptor Forum on collapse of Yorkshire Dales Bird of Prey ‘partnership’ (here)
A new BBC documentary aired last night that charts the police investigation into a missing charity cyclist, Tony Parsons, who vanished at the Bridge of Orchy in 2017 and whose remains were found three years later buried in a stink pit on the Auch Estate.
The programme follows the criminal trial of twin brothers Alexander (Sandy) and Robert McKellar from the Auch Estate, initially charged with murder but in 2023 Alexander was eventually convicted for the lesser offence of culpable homicide and Robert for attempting to defeat the ends of justice.
This case was of interest to me because the Auch Estate was at the centre of another criminal investigation in 2009 after walkers discovered a dead Golden Eagle. Tests revealed it had been illegally poisoned with the banned pesticide Carbofuran.
In 2012 Auch Estate farm manager Tom McKellar was convicted and fined £1,200 for possession of Carbofuran (not for poisoning the eagle, even though he had reportedly admitted during interview of putting out poisoned baits). He was also found to be in possession of two unlicensed handguns but instead of receiving a mandatory five-year custodial sentence he was given a 300-hour community service order.
From the Guardian, June 2009
The new BBC documentary provides a fascinating insight into the difficulties of investigating serious crime on a remote rural estate and the parallels with investigations into illegal raptor persecution in these glens will not be lost on blog readers. The ease with which the McKellar twins could hide their appalling crimes for so long is sobering.
Robbie Marsland is the Director of the League Against Cruel Sports for Scotland & Northern Ireland. He’s also a founding member of REVIVE, the coalition for grouse moor reform.
Here’s his opinion piece published in The Herald today.
Here we go again. The opening of the grouse shooting season is upon us. It used to be called the “Glorious Twelfth”. More often than not, the name is now preceded by the word, “controversial”.
Why the controversy? For decades, the shooting of wild grouse for entertainment flew under the radar. But now, there’s much better public understanding about what’s going on in our uplands.
No matter what your views are about killing an animal for fun, recent research has revealed the circle of destruction that surrounds grouse shooting in Scotland.
This circle of destruction isn’t just a catchy phrase, it’s a systematic assault on natural ecosystems where each destructive practice enables the next, creating an interconnected web of environmental damage that stretches across the grouse moors, that, in total, comprise around 12% of Scotland’s land.
On this land, hundreds of thousands of grouse are shot in a “good year”. A good year means there’s a high density of grouse on the moor, allowing substantial numbers of birds to be shot while still ensuing a sustainable breeding stock. To achieve a “good year”, then, that population of grouse needs to be “managed” by the shooting estates to be unnaturally high.
Population sizes are naturally increased by access to food and shelter and are decreased by exposure to disease and predators, what is commonly understood to be “the balance of nature”. The balance of nature ensures a sustainable ecosystem that looks after itself. But a balanced ecosystem obviously doesn’t produce an over-abundance of grouse that can produce a “good year” for the annual shooting season. To achieve that “good year”, an imbalance needs to be created; the balance of nature is turned on its head.
Extra food and shelter are provided by burning heather in the winter months. This provides new green shoots for the birds in the spring. It also releases C02 in to the atmosphere, encourages wildfires and stops trees from growing. This systematic burning creates the artificial habitat foundation upon which the entire circle of destruction depends.
Birds of prey perch in trees. Of course, birds of prey are protected species, but breeding pairs are mysteriously absent from many Scottish grouse moors. Their natural diet includes grouse.
Foxes, stoats, weasels and crows also naturally control the numbers of grouse. But as they have no legal protection, they can be killed to ensure there are more grouse to shoot. The largest scientific assessment so far revealed that around 200,000 foxes, stoats and weasels are killed by gamekeepers each year in Scotland to ensure artificially high numbers of grouse.
There are compelling reasons why estates invest so heavily in maintaining those high populations of grouse. A report to the Scottish Government from the Independent Grouse Moor Management Group revealed the capital value of an estate can be increased by £5,000 for every pair of grouse shot. Economic rewards such as these may go some way to explain why landowners will go to such lengths to maintain this artificially imbalanced system.
The natural balance of ecosystems isn’t entirely dependent on predation. A disease that regularly reduces grouse numbers is carried by a small worm, the strongyle worm. To reduce its impact, shooting estates deploy tens of thousands of grit-filled trays medicated with flubendazole in an attempt to kill the worms in the guts of the grouse.
This is despite the medical and veterinary industry’s concerns about the over-prescription of such chemicals. This mass chemical medication completes the circle of destruction. The inflated grouse populations created by habitat manipulation and predator slaughter then require pharmaceutical intervention to remain viable, yet this intensive management system operates without meaningful oversight.
Scotland introduced grouse moor licensing in 2024 under the Wildlife Management & Muirburn Act, supposedly to deter wildlife crime and ensure sustainable management. The reality has proven farcical. The grouse shooting industry threatened legal action against NatureScot’s interpretation of the legislation. Rather than stand firm, NatureScot capitulated, weakening the licences by changing coverage from entire estates to tiny areas around shooting butts. It’s still unclear how this mess will be resolved.
Polling shows that 60% of Scots oppose grouse shooting, with 76% against the predator control that kills hundreds of thousands of mammals annually. Even in the most remote rural areas – the supposed heartland of shooting support – opposition still outweighs support.
Turning the balance of nature on its head goes on year in, year out on Scottish shooting estates. But “good grouse years” do not. When you look at historical trends, the last time there was a “good grouse year” was 2018. Predictions, in Scotland, for 2025 suggest that too will be a “bad year”.
That means, even if you think it’s ok to kill a bird for fun, over that period of time more than a million foxes, stoats, weasels and crows will have been killed for nothing. Thousands of square miles of heather will have been needlessly burned and tons upon tons of chemicals will have been ineffectively strewn across the countryside. The economic incentives that drive this destruction continue to operate regardless of whether or not a “good year” for grouse emerges.
The circle of destruction surrounding grouse shooting reveals the true cost of allowing privileged minorities to treat Scotland’s land as their private playground. Until we break this interconnected system of destruction entirely, Scotland’s uplands will continue to serve private interests rather than the public good, and our wildlife will continue to pay the price for a democracy that has forgotten who it’s supposed to serve.
Meanwhile, the circle of destruction grinds on, crushing Scotland’s wildlife and ecosystems beneath the weight of economic interests that benefit the few while imposing costs on the many. For those of us who think its unethical and cruel to shoot a bird out of the sky – it’s always a crying shame.
Journalist, broadcaster and Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle hosted a 20 minute segment on the pros and cons of grouse shooting during his Saturday morning show on Times Radio last Saturday (9th August 2025), as pre-advertised in a blog here last week.
You can listen back to the discussion via the Times Radio website (here: starts at 02:04.05) and you can read / download the transcript here:
There were three interviewees – conservationist Dr Mark Avery, who was the instigator of the now 11-year old campaign to ban driven grouse shooting as detailed in his book, The Inglorious 12th: Conflict in the Uplands; Ben Macdonald, founder and director of a rewilding organisation called Restore; and Andrew Gilruth, CEO of The Moorland Association, the lobbying organisation for grouse moor owners in England.
I won’t comment much on Mark’s contribution – his thoughts on driven grouse shooting will be well known to regular readers of this blog and were characteristically robust.
It was the first time I’d heard Ben Macdonald speak on grouse shooting and although I found his opening remarks quite condescending towards those of us in the conservation sector who have spent years calling out the criminal elements of the driven grouse shooting industry and their unsustainable practices (does Ben think we should all have turned a blind eye?), I found his comments on restoring the ‘fundamentally depleted two-dimensional grouse moor landscape’ to be thoughtful and interesting.
The comments I really want to focus on, though, are those of Andrew Gilruth.
I’ve written previously about Andrew’s predisposition for what I’d call grossly misrepresenting scientific opinion when he worked for the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT), by cherry-picking information that helped present a favourable view of driven grouse shooting (e.g. see here, here and especially here). Whether he did this deliberately or whether he’s just incapable of interpretating scientific output is open to question.
This behaviour of spreading misinformation has continued, though, since he joined the Moorland Association in 2023, and last year resulted in his expulsion from the police-led Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG – a partnership to tackle the illegal killing of birds of prey in England & Wales).
Andrew’s opening line in his conversation with Rod Liddle didn’t bode well if you were hoping for a straight, undistorted conversation:
“… I also welcome, you know, Ben’s point, that Mark could only highlight what’s wrong …”
We don’t know what Rod Liddle asked Mark at the start of the discussion because it wasn’t included in the recording, but given Mark’s response it’s quite likely that he was asked to outline the problems with driven grouse shooting, to set the scene. We don’t know whether Rod asked Mark to speak about how to resolve those issues, but if he did, it wasn’t included in the programme, so for Andrew to argue that, “Mark could only highlight what’s wrong” was the first misrepresentation of many.
Rod moved the conversation swiftly on to the illegal killing of Hen Harriers on grouse moors and Andrew lost his composure within seconds. The sudden increase in his voice pitch was a dead giveaway.
I’ve written before about how the illegal killing of birds of prey is one of the most difficult issues for the driven grouse shooting to defend – because it’s indefensible. And Andrew couldn’t defend the persecution figures so instead he resorted to accusing the RSPB of publishing “unproven, unverified smears“. The irony wasn’t lost on me.
Those so-called “unproven, unverified smears” (actual crime incidents to you and me) have been accepted by everyone, including the Government, Police, Natural England, peer-reviewed journal editors – everyone except the grouse-shooting industry, some of whose members are the ones carrying out these crimes.
There’s now even a dedicated police-led taskforce that has been set-up to tackle these crimes (the Hen Harrier Taskforce), based on clear-eyed evidence, that is specifically targeting certain grouse moor estates in persecution hotspots, because that’s where the crimes are taking place, repeatedly.
To continue to deny that these crimes happen on many driven grouse moors, and to instead claim that they’ve been fabricated by the RSPB, is just absurd, but very, very telling.
Andrew then tried to use some tightly-selected prosecution data (produced by the RSPB – which, er, he’d just accused of being an unreliable source) to demonstrate that gamekeepers weren’t responsible for killing birds of prey. He chose a single year of data (last year’s) that just happened to not include any prosecutions of gamekeepers, and he used that as his sole evidence base to support his argument.
Had he picked any other year from the last fifteen or so, there’d quite likely be a gamekeeper conviction or two in there. However, selecting just a single year of data is wholly misrepresentative when you’re looking at trends, and a trend is exactly what we’re looking at when discussing which profession is most closely linked with the illegal persecution of birds of prey. To reliably identify a long-term trend you need to look at several years worth of data, and when you do that, here’s what the data tell us – it couldn’t be clearer:
Andrew’s not averse to using long-term trend data when it suits his argument though – he stated that, “Hen Harriers are now at a 200-year high“. The problem with that argument is that he forgot to mention what the baseline was for that trend – Hen Harriers were virtually extirpated (locally extinct) in England as a breeding species by the late 19th Century, primarily due to persecution, so any increase since then is bound to look impressive!
He also forgot to mention that last year the Hen Harrier breeding population in England was in decline again; this year’s figures have not yet been released but the word on the ground is that the numbers have dropped further, and notably on driven grouse moors. The illegal killing continues – at least 143 Hen Harriers have ‘disappeared’ in suspicious circumstances or have been found illegally killed since 2018, most of them on or close to driven grouse moors, with at least 14 more cases yet to be publicised (see here).
I find it endlessly fascinating that the grouse shooting industry will claim ownership of a (short-lived) increase in the Hen Harrier breeding population on driven grouse moors and yet will absolve itself from any responsibility for the illegal killing of Hen Harriers on, er, driven grouse moors.
Rod moved the discussion on to heather burning and Andrew’s contortions were unceasing. He argued that moorland burning has been happening in the UK for 6,000 years, as though a reference to the slash and burn agriculture of the Neolithic period justifies the continued burning of moorland in the 21st Century.
Society, and science, has moved on, and we now know that the repeated burning of blanket bog is inconsistent with the UK’s international responsibilities to maintain/restore blanket bog to favourable conservation status. We know that only 16.4% of the UK’s SAC blanket peatlands are in good conservation condition, and we also know that burning on deep peat grouse moors continues, despite recent legislation that makes it illegal inside protected areas.
In 2023, two grouse moor owners were convicted for burning on deep peat in protected areas, one in the Peak District (here) and one in Nidderdale; embarrassingly, that estate was owned by a Board member of the Moorland Association (here) and that’s perhaps why Andrew failed to mention it.
All in all, I’m thankful that Rod Liddle hosted this discussion. Not because it moved the conversation on – it didn’t, at all – but because I think it demonstrated that The Moorland Association is still utterly incapable of moving with the times. Its grotesque and snide distortion of reality is laid bare for all to see. Negotiation remains futile against such perverse denial.
The campaign to ban driven grouse shooting will continue. Watch this space.
Raptor Persecution UK 