Author: RaptorPersecutionUK

RSPB’s perspective on DEFRA’s useless raptor persecution maps

Last week we blogged about the publication of DEFRA’s latest raptor persecution maps (2011-2015), as developed by the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG).

We were highly critical of the maps (here) because we considered them to be inaccurate and out of date, difficult to navigate, and we argued that they would not, as DEFRA had claimed, help tackle wildlife crime. It was our opinion that DEFRA had published these useless maps as a desperate attempt, in the face of growing public concern, to make it look like it was actually doing something to tackle illegal raptor persecution.

The Northern England Raptor Forum (NERF), a member of the RPPDG, shared many of our concerns and publicly distanced itself from the maps (see here).

One of our main concerns about DEFRA’s useless maps was the amount of missing data (i.e. incidents that had been deliberately excluded, such as poisoned baits) and we said we would contact the RSPB to ask how many raptor persecution incidents they had recorded during the same period, for comparison.

It’s now very apparent that we were right to have concerns, not just about the poor quality of the maps but also of the dysfunctionality of the RPPDG, which, remember, is supposed to be a working partnership, but when you read the RSPB’s comments (below) and the statement from NERF, it’s pretty clear that the RPPDG is yet another partnership-working sham.

Many thanks to the RSPB’s Senior Investigations Officer Guy Shorrock who sent us the following insights yesterday:

Dear Raptor Persecution Scotland

Further to your email of the 15 December 2017 asking for details of confirmed raptor persecution data recorded by the RSPB from 2011 to 2015 inclusive I can provide the following information.

For this five year period we have 309 confirmed raptor persecution incidents, 106 of which are pesticide related incidents. Other than the pesticide incidents sourced through the government’s Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme (WIIS), nearly all of this data (shooting/trapping) for the RPPDG map was supplied by the RSPB. In overview, the RPPDG map has 262 data points, the difference from the RSPB 309 data points is due to: –

  • RSPB has 106 confirmed bird of prey poison incidents vs only 66 plotted on the RPPDG map (see below re WIIS data)
  • Thirteen confirmed bird of prey persecution incidents supplied by RSPB were not included as they did not fit the group’s criteria
  • A few errors in how the RSPB supplied data has been displayed – (there are 6 more incidents than there should be on the map, as four of the incidents we provided have been plotted as ten).

Data from WIIS for this period has been plotted at 66 incidents on the RPPDG map.  RSPB have the same WIIS data as representing 106 incidents, the two main reasons for this difference are that: –

1) incidents such as poisoned baits have not been included on the RPPDG map, and

2) the toxicology data supplied by WIIS has not been separated out into individual wildlife crime incidents.

RSPB use consistent spatial and temporal rules to decide how raptor persecution incidents should be recorded. This same method is applied to the WIIS toxicology data to produce wildlife crime incidents. The Glanusk case you mention in your blog provides a good example. During 2012 and 2013 a number of poison baits and victims were discovered on the Glanusk Estate, Wales over a twelve month period at a number of different locations. Using our rules we have mapped this as a total of 13 incidents. The RPPDG map has not included the poison baits and has grouped the raptor victims into a single incident.

RPPDG members, with the exception of NERF, had agreed the following phrase within a statement to go with the map ‘The inclusion of all categories of confirmed raptor persecution incidents (including e.g. poison baits, confirmed attempted incidents) will be considered for future updates’. We are disappointed that this clarification was not included and only became aware of this omission when the Defra media release was actually put out. I have tried to call Defra this morning to ask why this was omitted but have been unable to contact the relevant person. We were also surprised to see that Defra had linked the RPPDG map as a tool to support their Hen Harrier Action Plan. We were not aware that this was their intention, this was not part of the prepared RPPDG statement, and RSPB do not accept this is a valid claim.

RSPB believes that joint initiatives that help raise the awareness of raptor persecution are highly worthwhile and has invested significant time and resource supporting the NWCU and NE in the production of the RPPDG map. However, we do not accept the claim that this map by itself will enable the police in England and Wales to crack down on enforcement where it is needed most, as it is not providing anything we didn’t know already. RSPB has been publishing maps and details of confirmed incidents for over 20 years, in addition there is a huge amount of intelligence information gathered by RSPB and the statutory agencies plus a wide range of published work on raptor ecology and links to persecution. For example, it is clear that land on and around intensively managed grouse moors in the north of England are areas where species such as hen harrier and peregrine falcon are most at risk from persecution.

We believe the production of reliable and publicly accessible raptor persecution maps is a valuable initiative. Going forward, we hope future maps will include all raptor persecution incidents and that the toxicology results from WIIS will be properly categorised into wildlife crime incident data. Maps should also clarify whether any data has been omitted.

In order to make meaningful inroads into this difficult problem, the RSPB believe the key issue for the government to address is improving accountability on sporting estates. Key recommendations mentioned in our recent Birdcrime report include: –

‘Introduce a system of licensing for driven grouse shooting. Self-regulation has been given a chance but is not working. Therefore we propose introducing a fair set of rules in the form of a licensing system and code of practice, underpinned by law, to ensure shoots are operating legally and sustainably. This would also provide an effective deterrent to criminal activity, including loss of a licence to shoot in the most serious cases’.

‘Ensure shoot owners and managers can be held accountable for the actions of their gamekeepers by extending the vicarious liability legislation employed in Scotland to the rest of the UK’.

Just for the record, our first Birdcrime type annual report started in 1990, and first map of confirmed persecution incidents was in the 1994 report. I have attached a map of confirmed raptor persecution incidents from 1990 to 2016 (including RSPB & WIIS data) – this has 2545 data points (incidents for which we have a grid reference). As these are just the very tip of the iceberg, it is a rather sobering thought that there will undoubtedly have been tens of thousands of undiscovered and unreported confirmed incidents during this same period.

Guy Shorrock, RSPB Senior Investigations Officer

 

Satellite-tagged hen harrier ‘Kathy’ found dead in suspicious circumstances

Press release from Police Scotland, 20 December 2017:

Police Scotland and RSPB Scotland are issuing a joint appeal for information after a young hen harrier was discovered dead with unexplained injuries on an estate near Dunoon.

“Kathy”, a female bird, was satellite tagged as a chick on the Cowal Peninsula in August this year (2017) as part of the RSPB’s EU-funded Hen Harrier LIFE+ Project.

After fledging in late August, Kathy remained in the vicinity of the nest she hatched in for the next month. RSPB Scotland staff monitoring her tracking device became concerned when data suggested she hadn’t moved on October 3.

A search was carried out on October 5 when Kathy’s body was discovered.

The post-mortem results indicated that the bird had unexplained injuries which may be the result of criminality.

PC Donald Mackay from Police Scotland, said: “I appeal for anyone who knows what happened to Kathy to contact Police Scotland so that we can establish how she may have died. Although this would be an isolated incident in my area, it is concerning that a raptor may have been deliberately killed in Argyll. Hen harriers are a particularly fragile bird of prey in terms of their numbers in the UK, and Police Scotland will work with its partners to thoroughly investigate this incident and robustly deal with any person who may have been involved.”

Will Hayward, Investigations Officer for RSPB Scotland, said: “We are advised that this hen harrier has died from unexplained injuries that may be the result of criminality. If criminal cause of death is confirmed, this incident will sadly be another statistic to add to a catalogue of hen harriers that meet their end in this way. Only through the use of satellite technology are we finally getting an accurate picture of the true scale of a human persecution problem that has been denied by some parties for decades. We look forward to hearing the results of the police investigation into this hen harrier death in due course.”

Hen harriers are one of the country’s most threatened birds of prey with the latest national survey recording only 460 breeding pairs in Scotland, a drop of 27% since 2004. Anyone with information is asked to contact Police Scotland on 101 and ask to speak to a Wildlife Crime Officer.

ENDS

Two and a half months to make an appeal for information? Even allowing for the time it takes to conduct a post mortem and interview estate employees, that’s nowhere near good enough.

A photograph of Kathy has not been made available so here’s a photo of another dead satellite-tagged hen harrier (Caroll) found earlier this year. Photo by Northumberland Police.

UPDATE 24 December 2017: MSP urges closer cooperation to protect hen harriers – a futile request while illegal raptor killing continues (here).

Yorkshire Dales ‘could have too many hen harriers before long’

Clive Aslet is a former Editor of Country Life magazine who boasts of being ‘an acknowledged leading authority on Britain and its way of life‘, whatever that means.

One thing’s for sure, Mr Aslet is no leading authority on the principles of ecology.

He wrote a bizarre comment piece for The Times, published last week in response to DEFRA’s new (not new) raptor persecution maps, as follows:

BIRDS OF PREY NEED PROTECTION FROM HUMAN PREDATORS

The protection of raptors, such as hawks, eagles, buzzards and falcons, is one of the great success stories of the British countryside. When JA Baker wrote his classic The Peregrine fifty years ago, many species were in long-term decline, thanks largely to insecticides used in intensive agriculture and the severe winters of the early 1960s. Numbers have risen sharply since DTT and its like were banned, and raptors were given legal protection. Peregrines now even nest on London skyscrapers.

There have been successful reintroductions, such as that of the red kite: it’s common to see a dozen of these enormous birds now circling over the M40 in Oxfordshire. But successes like these worry country people who know that having too many large carnivores at the top of the food chain means that other species will suffer. Red kites are scavengers (hence their preference for roads, which provide a ready supply of carcasses) but when carrion becomes scarce they turn to living prey.

Grouse moors are a special problem. For the moor owner, grouse are a valuable crop. The bird provides a livelihood to the keepers who control predators such as foxes, stoats and rats that prey on eggs and chicks. Vermin control also allows wading birds like plovers, lapwings and curlews to nest in safety: it’s a wonderful thing to visit a moor teeming with wading birds as well as grouse, whether or not you plan to shoot any of them. But as a report published today shows, many keepers trap or kill hen harriers and sparrow hawks that threaten the viability of the shoot. They deserve to be prosecuted.

At last, landowners are getting the message that this behaviour is unacceptable, and are making greater efforts to conserve raptors. The prospect of the law in Scotland, which targets landowners as well as keepers, being introduced in England has concentrated minds. As has the possibility of a Labour government banning shooting altogether and making grouse moors worthless.

But there remains, as in many areas of conservation, a geographical imbalance. Some areas have too many raptors, others none at all. Exmoor, for example, has no hen harriers; before long, given the male bird’s promiscuity, the Yorkshire Dales could have too many.

Relocating broods from overpopulated areas to underpopulated ones is the answer — opposed, sadly, by the RSPB. Brexit offers a way out of this problem. Freed from the need for a one-size-fits-all approach, we can create the flexible conservation policy our birds of prey deserve.

ENDS

Leaving aside his obvious failure to grasp the simple conventions of predator/prey relationships (we can’t be bothered to turn this in to a lesson on the basics of ecology), we wanted to focus on just the last three paragraphs of his article.

Aslet seems to be muddled about brood meddling. He argues that “Relocating broods from overpopulated areas to underpopulated ones is the answer“. But that’s not what DEFRA’s hen harrier brood meddling is about. It might well be what the grouse shooting industry thought it was about, and wanted it to be about, when they first signed up for it – ‘Yeah, great, let’s get rid of hen harriers from our grouse moors and ship them off down to southern England so they can’t interfere with our shooting days in the northern uplands’, but as we now know, any hen harrier chicks removed from grouse moors and raised in captivity as part of DEFRA’s absurd brood meddling plan, will HAVE to be released back in to the uplands close to where they were first removed, and their release will coincide with the start of the grouse-shooting season. They cannot be used as the source birds for DEFRA’s equally absurd southern England reintroduction plan.

As for Aslet’s claim that “before long, given the male bird’s promiscuity, the Yorkshire Dales could have too many” [hen harriers], chance would be a fine thing! According to this report, there were only three successful hen harrier breeding attempts in the Yorkshire Dales National Park between 2000-2007, and since then, there haven’t been any!

Aslet also claims, “At last, landowners are getting the message that this behaviour is unacceptable, and are making greater efforts to conserve raptors“. Really? Some landowners are, for sure, but how many of those landowners manage driven grouse moors? It’s all very well saying that raptor persecution is unacceptable and pretending to be on board, but the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. There were only three successful hen harrier breeding attempts in the whole of England this year, and for the second year in a row, not one of those was on a driven grouse moor.

BASC suffers bout of amnesia

Just when we thought BASC was getting with the programme, it comes out with this drivel about the recently published raptor persecution map for England & Wales:

This is a screengrab of part of an article that was published on the BASC website – the full article can be read here.

BASC seems to be suffering from a bout of amnesia. The recently published map is not “the first comprehensive raptor persecution map for England & Wales“, as BASC claims. Far from it! The RSPB has been publishing comprehensive raptor persecution maps for decades, including incidents of shootings, trappings and nest destruction. In fact the RSPB maps have been far more comprehensive than the latest DEFRA map, because they’ve included information about poisoned baits and attempted raptor killing; incidents which have conveniently been removed from the new DEFRA map at the behest of certain organisations within the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG).

Here’s an example of a comprehensive raptor persecution map published 15 years ago by the RSPB in the 2002 RSPB Birdcrime report. This is the earliest Birdcrime report we could find online but there are also reports (and maps) that were published earlier than this.

BASC also repeats the claim that the ‘new’ (not new) raptor persecution map “will allow enforcement to be effectively targeted“. This is also complete nonsense, as we discussed a few days ago (here) and as the Northern England Raptor Forum (NERF) also pointed out (here). Indeed, it’s one of the reasons why NERF removed its support of the ‘new’ (not new) raptor persecution map.

That’s not to say the map doesn’t have any value at all – it certainly does, but that value is in raising awareness amongst the general public that illegal raptor persecution continues, and that much of it is associated with land managed for game shooting.

To be seen as a credible voice fighting against raptor persecution, BASC needs to stop pretending that the RPPDG is way ahead of the game and is making progress on tackling raptor persecution. This is pure progaganda – we know it and BASC knows it.

Taxpayers’ money used to fund nonsensical questionnaire on Hen Harrier Action Plan

While Natural England is busily keeping secret its plans for hen harrier brood meddling, unbelievably it has funded a new ‘study’ to find out what members of the public think about the Hen Harrier Action Plan!

Some of you may have received an email recently from an academic researcher asking you to fill in an online questionnaire, which is part of a ‘study’ that aims to “understand the different perceptions of hen harriers and examine support for the different measures proposed by DEFRA to recover the hen harrier population“.

The ‘study’ is being undertaken by the Universities of Bangor and Aberdeen, and is “funded by Natural England“. What this actually means is that you, the British taxpayer, has funded it.

We don’t know how much public money has been wasted on this pointless study, but a similar study proposed by researchers at the Universities of Aberdeen and Kent (to guage the opinions of grouse moor owners) was estimated to cost in the region of £50,000 (see here).

It’s kind of hard to see how public opinion of the Hen Harrier Action Plan will be of any genuine research value given that much of the detail about the six action points in this Hen Harrier Action Plan has so far been kept secret!

The questionnaire targets a certain sector of society and the cover letter says, “You have been chosen as a respondent because you are a member of an organisation with an interest in birds in England“. The survey’s question 2 gives an indication about which organisations have been invited to participate:

Many of the questions relate to the respondents’ views on each of the six action points listed in the Hen Harrier Action Plan, such as this one:

It’s a ridiculous question to ask because although in principle the first four of these measures could (and should) increase the number of hen harriers in England, they clearly haven’t worked even though most of the measures have been undertaken for years! For example:

Monitoring (“currently in operation“) hasn’t increased the hen harrier population.

Diversionary feeding (“currently in operation“) hasn’t increased the hen harrier population (and has yet to even be put in to practice by any grouse moor manager in England – see here).

Improving intelligence information and enforcement (“currently in operation“) hasn’t increased the hen harrier population (which is hardly a suprise when you realise that this particular measure is supposedly being led by the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group [RPPDG] – the group that has taken years to produce out of date and inaccurate raptor persecution maps).

Nest and winter roost protection (“currently in operation“) hasn’t increased the hen harrier population.

Here’s another ridiculous question:

Again, none of the first four measures, which have been in operation for years, has resulted in the reduction of illegal hen harrier persecution.

It’s impossible to say whether brood meddling and the southern England reintroduction will reduce illegal killing because we haven’t yet been allowed to see detailed proposals for these two measures.

However, some questions are easier to answer:

We’re not publishing a link to the online questionnaire because undoubtedly it’ll be hijacked by those with a vested interest in making it look like the Hen Harrier Action Plan has widespread public support. Indeed, the questionnaire may already have been hijacked – the respondent is not required to provide any evidence of their identity, but only to indicate from which organisation they received the questionnaire. This will enable false claims that the respondent got the questionnaire from the RSPB or from the Northern England Raptor Forum (two groups that fundamentally oppose the Hen Harrier Action Plan), and thus their views that the Hen Harrier Action Plan is a brilliant thing will be falsely portrayed in the results as coming from members of these two organisations.

What a waste of public funds.

Natural England refuses to release Hen Harrier Brood Meddling Plan

Natural England continues its tirade of a lack of transparency and public accountability in relation to the Hen Harrier Action Plan.

As regular blog readers will know, we’ve spent over a year trying to get details about the most controversial part of the HH Action Plan – the brood meddling scheme. Natural England has point blank refused almost every single FoI request we’ve submitted on this subject, citing concerns about how publication might ‘prejudice’ the on-going licence application for brood meddling (from Natural England, to, er Natural England).

We did, however, manage to get something out of Natural England in late November 2017 – we blogged about it here.

Part of what we learned was that the Brood Meddling Team (including representatives from GWCT, Hawk & Owl Trust, Moorland Association, Natural England, International Centre for Birds of Prey, and Aberdeen University) had held a meeting in June 2017 to discuss the draft Hen Harrier Brood Management Plan.

Naturally, we were keen to see this draft Brood Meddling Plan so we asked Natural England for a copy.

True to form, Natural England has refused:

In many respects Natural England’s refusal to be upfront about anything to do with hen harriers will not come as a surprise to anybody. However, we were surprised at this particular refusal given that the draft brief for the proposed reintroduction of hen harriers to southern England HAS been released after several FoI attempts (see here).

Hmm. What is in the Brood Meddling Plan that Natural England doesn’t want anyone to see?

Silly old us, eh? Wanting to see how Natural England is abusing our taxes to remove hen harriers from grouse moors.

We won’t have to wait long to find out. Natural England has previously told us that the brood meddling licence application, that has been under consideration for about 9 months, should be completed “by the end of the year”. Assuming the licence is approved, Natural England will have to release it, and the associated brood meddling plan, for public scrutiny.

Irish Raptor Study Group Annual Conference – bookings now open

The Irish Raptor Study Group is hosting its 2018 annual conference on Saturday 27th January 2018, at The Green Isle Conference & Leisure Hotel in Dublin.

The conference is open to all, tickets cost 25 Euros.

Booking details: IRSG_2018Conference_BookingForm

Birds of prey suffer massacre on moors

This made us laugh. The Dark Side will be seething about this damaging headline!

Here’s an article from today’s edition of The Times (of all places!) – their interpretation of DEFRA’s crap raptor persecution maps:

As usual, the article sits behind a paywall so here’s the extracted text:

The North York Moors is the most dangerous place for birds of prey, according to maps of England and Wales that have exposed at least six hotspots of wildlife crime.

Thérèse Coffey, the wildlife minister, promised a police response yesterday after the maps charted 262 incidents in which raptors, including buzzards, kites and owls, had been trapped, shot, poisoned or had their nests destroyed between 2011 and 2015.

North Yorkshire had the highest number of incidents at 39, overwhelmingly in and around the North York Moors National Park.

There were 17 incidents in Norfolk and 11 each in Cumbria and Derbyshire, followed by ten cases in Lincolnshire and eight each in Suffolk and Northumberland.

Conservationists blame gamekeepers for killing the birds of prey to protect pheasants and grouse which are shot for sport. Britain’s biggest shooting organisation has admitted that its members have been involved in killing birds of prey illegally.

Ms Coffey said: “These maps highlight hotspots across the country for crimes against these precious birds, enabling the police to crack down with increased enforcement in areas where it’s needed most.

“Birds of prey are a vital part of our animal landscape, icons of our cultural heritage and key to boosting local economies by attracting visitors to England and Wales.”

The maps were produced by more than a dozen groups, including gamekeepers, landowners and the gun lobby as well as the Crown Prosecution Service and National Wildlife Crime Unit.

Christopher Graffius, of the British Association of Shooting and Conservation, said that the sport risked a ban unless it did more to root out the criminals involved in persecuting raptors.

“This map should serve as a wake-up call for those who are doing a disservice to the entire shooting community by committing crimes against birds of prey,” he said.

The maps showed 146 incidents in which birds were shot and 66 where they were poisoned. In 108 cases the victims were buzzards, which prey on pheasants. Forty cases involved owls, 39 red kites and 34 peregrine falcons. One incident involved a hen harrier, one of Britain’s most endangered birds. The Department for the Environment said that raptor persecution was a “wildlife crime priority”.

ENDS

DEFRA publishes inaccurate & out of date raptor persecution maps

In a desperate attempt to look like it’s doing something about tackling raptor persecution in England & Wales, DEFRA has published some raptor persecution maps covering the period 2011-2015, as developed by the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG).

It needn’t have bothered. Apart from being extremely difficult to navigate, the maps are inaccurate, out of date and will not help tackle wildlife crime one tiny bit, despite the ludicrous claims made in DEFRA’s official press release.

These latest maps have been uploaded to the Government’s ‘Magic Map’ system, probably so called because data ‘magically disappears’, or at least it does in the case of the raptor persecution data.

As an example, we looked at the ‘new’ map showing the incident data relating to the mass poisoning of buzzards, red kites and ravens at Glanusk Estate in Wales in 2012 & 2013, crimes we have blogged about in detail (e.g. see here, here, here, here, here).

According to DEFRA’s new map, ‘7 buzzards & 6 red kites were poisoned in 1 incident’. Eh? For a start these raptors were poisoned in multiple incidents in 2012 and 2013. This is NOT ‘one incident’, as portrayed in the new map, but are several crimes that were commissioned over many months. And where is the information on the poisoned raven and the nine poisoned baits that were also found? Why have these details been excluded from DEFRA’s new map?

We can take an educated guess why. Having read the minutes of the RPPDG meetings over recent years (which we will be publishing shortly), it is clear that discussions have centred on how to remove as much data as possible from these ‘official’ maps to make it look like raptor persecution is not as widespread and rampant as it actually is. We saw the same arguments from the Scottish PAW Raptor Group, who for years did not include data on poisoned baits on its ‘official’ raptor persecution maps because, it was argued by the game shooting industry, it couldn’t be shown that a poisoned bait was placed specifically to target a raptor! Thankfully, the Scottish authorities eventually saw sense and now do include data on poisoned baits.

It seems we’re not the only ones to criticise these latest ‘new’ DEFRA maps. You’ll note from the DEFRA press release that the Northern England Raptor Forum (NERF) is not listed as one of the many ‘partner’ groups of the RPPDG, even though NERF is a partner. We thought that was fascinating. Was this an oversight or was it an indication that NERF has distanced itself from the this shambolic & desperate attempt at greenwashing the Westminster Government’s record of failing to address raptor persecution crimes?

Well, it turns out NERF has indeed distanced itself. Have a look at this statement, just published on the NERF website. It pulls no punches and spells out exactly why these DEFRA maps are a complete waste of time. Well done, NERF!

Given our (and NERF’s) lack of confidence in these ‘new’ (not new) DEFRA maps, we’ll be contacting the RSPB to ask them how many incidents of raptor persecution they have recorded in their database for the same period (2011-2015). We think it’ll make for an interesting comparison.

We’ll come back to this when we get a response from the RSPB.

For those of you struggling to access the raptor persecution maps on the Government’s Magic Maps system (you won’t be alone – it really is a dreadful, non-user-friendly bit of tech), here’s a quick guide:

Go to the Magic Maps homepage here

Click on ‘Maps’ then ‘Interactive map’

You’ll see a Table of Contents on the left hand side of the screen

Tick the box next to ‘Habitats and Species’

Tick the box next to ‘Species’

Scroll down and tick the box next to ‘Birds’

Scroll down and tick the box next to ‘Raptor Persecution’

Zoom in to the map to your area of interest and you’ll see various symbols. Click on the ‘i’ button on the top toolbar, then move your cursor to the symbol of interest. Then click on the symbol of interest and the (limited) incident data should appear in a box.

Alternatively, for those who want to see a complete and more up to date (and more user-friendly) map of raptor persecution data in England & Wales, simply look at the RSPB’s annual Birdcrime reports, which they’ve been publishing for almost 30 years! Here’s their latest one.

UPDATE 2pm: Birds of prey suffer massacre on moors (here)

UPDATE 22 December 2017: RSPB’s perspective on DEFRA’s useless raptor persecution maps (here)

Heads Up for Harriers Project condemned as “greenwashing exercise” in Parliamentary debate

Yesterday evening saw a Members Debate in the Scottish Parliament as a result of MSP Mairi Gougeon’s recent motion in support of the Heads Up for Harriers Project and the Role of Species Champions.

The archive video of this debate can be watched here and the official report of the meeting can be read here:

Heads up for Harriers debate 13Dec2017

The debate centred on two topics: the role of the species champions and the Heads Up for Harriers Project (HuHP). For the purpose of this blog, we’ll just be focusing on the HuHP – that’s not to say the role of the species champion isn’t important – as we’ve blogged before, it’s an incredibly worthwhile initiative and one that we very much support. We are especially pleased that Mairi Gougeon used her position as the Hen Harrier Species Champion to secure this debate – all credit to her, well done.

A number of MSPs spoke specifically about the HuHP and all except one acknowledged that illegal persecution continues to be a threat to the hen harrier and to several other raptor species. The only one who didn’t acknowledge this fact was John Scott MSP (Conservative), who gave a bizarre speech about the lack of fox and “vermin” control on FCS land and suggested that this played a part in the decline of the hen harrier population. He obviously hasn’t been told that just across the Scottish border at Kielder, the ONLY successful breeding pairs (x 3) of hen harriers in England this year were on, er, FC land.

He went on to say, “Notwithstanding the alleged predation of hen harriers by land managers, I still believe that the safest place for hen harriers to raise chicks is on well-managed grouse moors“.  Dear God.

John Scott’s parliamentary colleague Donald Cameron (Conservative) (and the Species Champion for the Merlin) was far better informed, although he did say, “There has been much criticism of people in the grouse industry who actively persecute birds of prey. I think that we all acknowledge that grouse shooting is an important industry for the rural economy of our country. The vast majority of land managers, whether they are owners or employees, use sustainable environmental management practices to a high standard and operate within the law. It is important to note that many estates carry out measures to conserve and preserve raptor populations“.

We agree that some estates do “employ sustainable environmental management practices to a high standard and operate within the law“. We heaped praise on one of them quite recently (see here). But it’s quite clear from the scientific data on several raptor species (e.g. hen harrier, golden eagle, peregrine, red kite) that there are still a large number of estates that do NOT operate within the law, and those landholdings just happen to coincide with areas intensively managed as driven grouse moors.

We’re not talking about the odd nest failure here and there due to predation or poor weather – these are natural causes of failure that you’d expect from time to time, and everybody acknowledges this. What we’re talking about here is the persistent, long-term absence of these species in areas where they should be, and would be, thriving if they weren’t being routinely and systematically persecuted.

The speeches of two Parliamentary members were the most interesting to us – those given by Andy Wightman MSP (Scottish Greens) and Liam McArthur MSP (Lib Dem). You really do need to read them (and/or watch the video). Both of them pointed out that the HuHP does not address the fundamental issue of tackling illegal persecution because none of the participating estates that have had cameras deployed are known raptor persecution hotspots, nor are they operated as intensively managed driven grouse moors. Andy Wightman went further and said,

“Indeed, I believe that the project is being used as a greenwashing exercise to hide the criminal activities that are undertaken by some in the driven grouse shooting industry and to promote the misleading impression that it is voluntarily cooperating to clean up its act“.

Bravo!

The claim that many of the estates with nest cameras on them are managed as driven grouse moors is an interesting one, and, we believe, is untrue.

According to the briefing paper from Scottish Land & Estates (SLE), provided to MSPs prior to the debate:

“Up to two thirds of the estates where cameras were installed have been driven grouse moors, indicating a strong take-up where the issue of Hen Harrier decline is most relevant“.

See SLE’s briefing paper here: SLE briefing Heads Up for Harriers debate_13Dec2017

Why do we believe this statement to be untrue? Well, we could argue that any information from SLE on raptor conservation issues is quite likely to be misleading. We’ve seen many examples of outright propaganda from this organisation over the years (under it’s own name and also under the name of its subgroups, the Scottish Moorland Group and the Gift of Grouse), e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and as a result we don’t trust a word they say.

But in this case our suspicion is based on more than just a natural distrust of SLE; it’s based on some long-term and painstaking investigative research that we’ve been doing to identify the estates involved in this Heads Up for Harriers Project.

We are confident that we’ve identified the three estates that had cameras deployed in 2015, the three estates that had cameras deployed in 2016, and five of the six or seven estates (there seems to be uncertainty about the actual number) that had cameras deployed in 2017. We are also confident that NOT ONE of these areas where the actual cameras were deployed is a known raptor persecution hotspot and we questions how many of them are actually managed for driven grouse shooting.

But before we can publish our findings, we need to verify our conclusions. So we submitted an FoI request to SNH and this is what we got back:

FoI request to SNH: In each year, how many estates had successful nests and of those, how many estates were managed for driven grouse shooting?

SNH response: 2015 – 2 estates with successful nests, 2 of which were driven grouse moor. 1 additional successful nest 100m off the estate boundary of a driven grouse moor.

2016 – 3 estates with successful nests, 2 of which were driven grouse moor.

2017 – 6 estates with successful nests, 3 of which were driven grouse moor.

FoI request to SNH: Please provide the name of each estate, in each year, that signed up to participate.

SNH response: We have considered this part of your request very carefully, and we are unable to provide the estate names. Estates enter into the Heads Up For Harriers project voluntarily. The estate name information in this case was provided voluntarily, there are no other circumstances that entitle SNH to disclose it, and the estates have not consented to disclosure. Making the information publicly available would be likely to prejudice the interests of the estates, for example via negative publicity in the event of harriers not nesting on the estate or in the event of nest/s failing on the estate. We are therefore withholding the estate name details under EIRs Regulation 10(5)(f) (Interests of the individual providing the information).

The Heads Up for Harriers project members’ position is that estate wishes must be respected. Further, members agree the most important aspect of the project is to encourage cooperation and a positive working relationship ‘on the ground’ between estates, Project Officers and other project members to promote survival of hen harriers and enable monitoring if and when hen harriers return to breed. We have therefore concluded that, in this case, the public interest is best served by not releasing the estate names.

Interesting, isn’t it? As Andy Wightman pointed out in his speech, this is a publicy funded project and yet the names of the participating estates are being kept secret. Why is that, do you think?

Given the serious nature of our concern that inaccurate and misleading information is being spewed out, not only by SLE but significantly by SNH, to portray this project as a genuine attempt by the driven grouse shooting industry to support hen harriers, we’ll be challenging SNH about its refusal to release information that would either support or refute our suspicions that the Heads Up for Harriers Project is just a greenwashing exercise.

Watch this space.