Last Friday I was contacted by a journalist from the Scottish Daily Mail who asked me this:
“I wondered if it would be possible to get a comment from Raptor Persecution UK about the Scottish Gamekeepers Association claiming that ‘insults’ made about them and the work they do on Raptor Persecution UK’s blog is taking its toll on members. In the recent chairman’s column, he claims ‘skilled predator management is now dressed up by campaigners as ‘casual killing’. What is Raptor Persecution UK’s response to this.
It’s for tomorrow’s paper, so a response today would be much appreciated“.
The thing was, I hadn’t read the ‘Chairman’s column’ she referred to. I guessed she was referring to the SGA’s latest quarterly rag for members, ‘Scottish Gamekeeper‘, which hadn’t yet been published (it’s due out this weekend).
It seemed pretty obvious to me then, that someone from the SGA was attempting to plant yet another story in the press, portraying themselves as ‘victims’, presumably in a pathetic attempt to elicit public support and sympathy for their wildlife-killing ways. We’ve been here before (e.g. here in 2021), although to do it at Christmas-time seemed more than a little cynical.
Normally I wouldn’t give the time of day to a journalist from the Mail but as she’d asked so nicely I thought it would be rude not to respond.
I told the journalist that given the SGA’s members’ long-running and well-documented campaign of vitriol and hatred against those of us who campaign against the illegal killing of birds of prey by gamekeepers on shooting estates (e.g. see here and here), this latest attempt to present themselves as victims of ‘insults’ was risible.
Are these the same gamekeepers who, for the duration of this last month, have been sharing an ‘advent calendar of abuse’ on social media, this time targeting named staff members of the RSPB?
This ‘advent calendar of abuse’ is written and published by the grouse shooting industry’s very own hateful astroturfers, C4PMC (see here for an insight in to who they really are), and C4PMC has form for it.
They first started publishing these vindictive narratives in December 2020 (during a Coronavirus lockdown, no less) where each day they targeted a named individual known to campaign against driven grouse shooting. Those targeted included all the usual suspects (me, Chris Packham, various RSPB staff members, raptor fieldworkers, conservationists, even politicians), and guess who was involved in spreading that malicious abuse via their own social media accounts?
Yep, the SGA and friends, including former SGA Director and regular SGA columnist Bert Burnett, and several members of the Scottish Regional Moorlands Group, including the Angus Glens Moorland Group, Speyside Moorland Group, Southern Uplands Moorland Group, Tayside Moorland Group and the Grampian Moorland Group. Here are some examples:
And now they’re actually claiming that ‘insults’ are ‘taking their toll’ on SGA members?!
I also told the journalist, on the issue of ‘casual killing’, recent research has demonstrated that up to a quarter of a million animals are killed on Scotland’s grouse moors each year (in addition to all the gamebirds that are killed), and nearly half of those animals are non-target species (e.g. Hedgehogs, Dippers, Mistle Thrushes). I’d argue that referring to this as ‘casual killing’ is not an ‘insult’, it’s justified criticism.
I also told the journalist that whilst I thought that limited and targeted predator control, in some circumstances, for the conservation of threatened species, is justifiable, the wholesale slaughter of wildlife, just to protect gamebirds that are later shot and killed for so-called ‘sport’, is, in my opinion, inexcusable.
If you’re killing wildlife for a living, in order for others to pay some money to kill even more wildlife just for fun, don’t be surprised when others have legitimate concerns about it.
Funnily enough, the article in the Scottish Daily Mail never materialised. When I asked the journalist what had happened to it, she said the editor had pulled it.
Perhaps there was a realisation that the world according to the SGA was just too embarrassing, even for the Mail!
The National newspaper published a special report on Monday 16 December 2024 entitled, ‘Why are birds of prey still being killed in Scotland despite new legislation?’, with a particular focus on the Cairngorms National Park.
It’s reproduced below.
SCOTLAND passed the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill earlier this year, introducing a licensing scheme for the grouse shooting industry in a bid to end the illegal killing of birds of prey.
The first licenses were issued this past summer, and while considered a blueprint for tougher legislation across the UK – people are still killing birds of prey on grouse moors, which is not an easy thing to do.
Guilty parties must have access to a vehicle, equipment such as a firearm, opportunity and motive.
“This isn’t people traveling from towns and cities going up onto our hills and randomly killing birds of prey. These are targeted offences,” Ian Thomson, investigations manager for the RSPB, told The National.
But why? And who would do this?
Why are grouse moor shootings still taking place?
A Hen Harrier disappeared in February. A buzzard was shot in Perthshire in mid-May. An osprey was shot in the Glen Doll area in August. A dead golden eagle was found in a plastic bag near Loch Rusky in November.
In the last 15 years, more than 1500 birds of prey have been killed, with 57 convictions. However, the majority of these sentences are suspended, and only one person has been jailed.
Most of the evidence gathered by investigators is from satellite tags, fitted to allow conservationists to monitor the movements around the country.
The technology is estimated to be about 97% reliable, and “very rarely suffers some sort of technical function”, according to Thomson.
“Often we believe that there is strong evidence that supports the fact that these birds are being shot often at night, the tags destroyed, and the carcass is disposed of,” Thomson said.
The RSPB investigations team assists Police Scotland by speaking to local land managers and liaising with the community if a tag stops working. When asked why anyone would target the birds, even with the new legislation in place, Thomson said: “The killings are being undertaken by people who are working on the land.
“That’s the reality, and the vast majority of raptor persecution offenses occurring in Scotland are linked to management for kind of game bird shooting and particularly grouse shooting.
“There are many layers of evidence that support that.
“First of all, the location of the incidents that are found. Whether its birds shot, birds poisoned, or nests destroyed, these are all subject to police investigations.
“A significant proportion of people convicted for raptor persecution offenses have been gamekeepers,” Thomson shared.
RSPB data shows that at least 54% of all confirmed incidents in the last 10 years (2014-2023) have been linked to land managed for pheasant, partridge and grouse shooting.
The association of these crimes with the gamebird industry is also evidenced by criminal court records. Of all individuals convicted of bird of prey persecution related offences from 2009 to 2023, 75% were connected to the gamebird shooting industry and 68% were gamekeepers.
The Angus Glens crime hotspot
Angus Glens in the Cairngorms is a hotspot for the number of raptor persecution in Scotland, with the Highlands having 69 since 2009.
There have been multiple confirmed incidents occurring on several estates in the area. This includes many poisoning incidents using chemicals whose possession was long banned, repeated illegal misusing abuse of crow traps and pole traps, shootings and destruction of nests.
Earlier this year, NatureScot placed restrictions on an estate on the edge of the Cairngorms National Park for three years following evidence of bird poisoning on the property.
Thomson said there had been 10 suspicious disappearances of satellite tags on birds of prey in the Angus Glen in the last 15 years.
There has been a peregrine, and an osprey shot since the start of the shooting season in Angus Glens this year, which Thomson described as “worrying”.
The law as it has stood since 2012 has been serious liability, which means landowners are responsible for the actions of their employees and the land.
So are landowners aware of the circumstances surrounding raptor persecutions on their land?
A wall of silence
The first licenses under the new bill were approved this past July, but Thomson noted there would have been no need for it had the industry “taken possession of this problem decades ago”.
He added: “I think had the industry rooted out criminals, then we wouldn’t have needed this sort of legislation moved on.
“We are in a situation where some Victorian management practices towards birds of prey persist. It really is time that the shooting industry got into the 21st century.”
Thomson said it was rare for estates to report raptor persecutions.
When asked whether estates may be protecting or turning a blind eye to those who target birds of prey, Thomson said he could not confirm but he and his team frequently hear of peer pressure within estates to keep reporting low, adding that crimes are rarely reported by the industry.
“The problem is the game keeping industry is used to operating a bit like a closed shop,” Thomson said.
“It’s very difficult. There is no whistleblowing culture, and it would be fantastic if organizations representing gamekeepers set up a scheme where people could report incidents taking place and those are passed on to the police.
“But that just never seems to happen. Exceedingly rare truths are told.”
Thomson revealed that gamekeepers come to the team sharing their worries and are “terrified” to come forward.
“They say to us this information can’t come from me because I may lose my job and I may lose my friends and I may lose my hobby. People are under considerable pressure to keep their mouths shut,” he said.
“Either people won’t see anything or there is just a culture of denial.”
Thomson described “efforts to deny or downplay” incidents, and said that when satellite tags start to disappear, people blame “imaginary wind farms” or factors, dismissing science and evidence of crimes.
“It’s a mix of cultural misinformation, a wall of silence and complete denial”, Thomson added.
ENDS
For those who are sick to the back teeth of birds of prey being illegally killed on grouse moors, you might want to sign this new petition from Wild Justice calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting – HERE.
Natural England has today posted a blog updating the status of three brood meddled satellite-tagged hen harriers, which had previously been reported as ‘dead, awaiting post mortem’ (x 1) and ‘Missing, Fate Unknown’ (x 2).
A post mortem on the dead hen harrier has concluded it died from natural causes. The two ‘missing’ hen harriers have been found dead, and both corpses contained shotgun pellets.
I’ll reproduce Natural England’s blog, below, then I’ll comment on the content of Natural England’s blog, then on the extraordinary (or not) response from the Moorland Association.
An illegally killed hen harrier. Photo by Ruth Tingay
UPDATE ON THE DEATHS OF THREE TAGGED HEN HARRIERS
Natural England blog, 18 December 2024.
Hen harriers remain rare in England, with a welcome increase in their population over the last few years stalling in 2024. Poor weather and food availability may cause their numbers to fluctuate, but ongoing illegal killing remains a serious threat to the species’ survival in England.
Natural England (NE) has recently received confirmation that police investigations into the deaths of two tagged hen harriers have concluded, and we can now be confident that releasing information relating to these cases will not jeopardise the course of justice. We have also recently received final post-mortem information for a third tagged bird. This blog serves to document their fate.
R2-M1-23, #213927
Juvenile male harrier R2-M1-23 was tagged in July 2023, at a release site in Cumbria as part of the Brood Management Trial, before heading to spend the winter in North Devon (a link to our monitoring spreadsheet for all NE tagged hen harriers can be found here). On 29 February 2024, R2-M1-23’s tag recorded a very low body temperature, indicating death. As is standard procedure, NE’s Enforcement and Appeals Team (NE E&A) informed the police of the discrepancies in the tracking data. On 5 March under direction from police, specialist NE E&A staff were deployed to search for the missing hen harrier. R2-M1-23 was found in a small clearing between agricultural fields, his tag clearly visible, and his body showing some signs of predation.
The carcass of R2-M1-23 was photographed and collected, then sent to the Institute of Zoology at Zoological Society of London (ZSL) for a post-mortem examination. Poor body condition, masses growing in the crop, and other internal signs, indicate that he carried a number of common diseases. The role of these in his death cannot be fully quantified, but R2-M1-23 is considered to have died of natural causes.
R2-F2-20 #55144 + R3-F1-22 #213921a
Two female hen harriers R2-F2-20 and R3-F1-22 were tagged in 2020 and 2022 at release sites in northern England as part of the Brood Management Trial. During the winter of 2022 both settled into the same roost site in the North Pennines, monitored by NE Hen Harrier Team field staff under the brood management trial partnership agreement.
On 7 December 2022, R2-F2-20’s tag stopped transmitting. One week later, on 14 December, R3-F1-22’s tag also went offline. Leading up to this both birds had been behaving naturally. With the full cooperation of local land managers, numerous searches were made by police and NE E&A staff around the last transmission site, nearby roost, and in areas used by each bird, but unfortunately neither was found in the weeks that followed.
Further intermittent transmissions were received from both tags between January and April 2023, but further ground searches were unsuccessful until 10 April, when R3-F1-22 was recovered by NE field staff with the assistance of the local gamekeeper and estate manager. Her remains were collected by a Wildlife Crime (police) Officer and sent to ZSL for a post-mortem examination. On 25 June 2023, R2-F2-20 finally transmitted again; she was located 4 days later by a quickly mustered multi-agency search team, and also sent to ZSL for a post-mortem.
After months laying dead, both bodies were highly degraded, but three suspected lead shotgun pellets were found within the body of R2-F2-20, and two in the body of R3-F1-22. The level of decomposition of the bodies led ZSL to conclude that it was not possible to explicitly link the death of either bird to the pellets. NWCU could take the case no further, but the presence of pellets suggests ongoing illegal persecution of hen harriers in northern England.
Detective Inspector Mark Harrison from the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) said:
“The work that Natural England, and other organisations do to satellite tag these birds has given the police an opportunity to assess what is going on and where the greatest threats are. We have developed new procedures to assess each incident referred to us so that we can try to establish what has happened and to give the police the best chance of recovering evidence when a crime has occurred. It also means that we can be proactive and target repeat crime locations. It is working and there has been a significant decrease in crimes involving tagged birds this year. Obviously, birds do die naturally, but 2 out of 3 of these rare birds was a victim of crime. That is unacceptable and we will do everything we can to prevent further crimes and prosecute offenders.”
Natural England’s Hen Harrier Team monitor, tag and track these rare and threatened birds to support their recovery as set out in the Hen Harrier Action Plan. We are grateful to partner organisations and land managers who support our work, and will continue to work closely with the National Wildlife Crime Unit in their efforts to investigate bird of prey crime. In the interests of transparency, we publish the status of all tagged hen harriers on our tracking update page, and aim to share details of how birds died when possible. News of deliberate killing of tagged hen harriers is always hard for our team to hear, but it does not discourage us from our continued work on hen harrier recovery.
ENDS
The news of brood meddled hen harrier (R2-M1-23, #213927) found dead in North Devon on 5 March 2024 that NE has now confirmed died of natural causes, first came to light in NE’s August 2024 tracking data update that I blogged about on 10 September 2024 (see here). Quite why it’s taken nine months for its cause of death to be publicised is beyond me.
This harrier was one of five that had been found dead during 2024 and for which we were awaiting post mortem results. I note that NE has still not publicised the post mortem results of the other four dead harriers.
This harrier was not included in my running tally of persecuted/’missing’ hen harriers (currently numbering 130 dead/’missing’ birds since 2018) because the circumstances of its death weren’t known. Now we know it died of natural causes, it definitely won’t be added to the list. I await the post mortem results of the other four birds with interest.
The two brood meddled hen harriers (R2-F2-20 #55144 and R3-F1-22 #213921a) were previously listed as ‘Missing, Fate Unknown’ and were included on my list of dead/’missing’ hen harriers.
They both ‘disappeared’ two years ago, in December 2022, within days of each other, from the same winter roost site in the North Pennines. This is the first time that NE has announced their corpses were later found (one in April 2023 and the other in June 2023). Why on earth has it taken NE 18 months and 20 months respectively to reveal that (a) both birds had been found dead, and (b) both corpses contained shotgun pellets (3 and 2 pellets respectively)?
The post mortem results of these two harriers are smothered in caution: “The level of decomposition of the bodies led ZSL to conclude that it was not possible to explicitly link the death of either bird to the pellets“. The key word here is ‘explicitly’. The fact the two corpses contained shotgun pellets shows that they were both definitely the victims of wildlife crime, as stated clearly by Detective Inspector Mark Harrison from the NWCU’s Hen Harrier Taskforce. The fact that both birds had vanished from the same winter roost on a grouse moor in the North Pennines, within a week of one another, points to a pretty obvious set of circumstances to anyone looking at this objectively.
The Moorland Association (the grouse owners’ lobby group) has responded to Natural England’s blog with yet another blatant and shameful attempt at misrepresentation:
In the Moorland Association’s second paragraph, where it purports to quote from the Natural England blog, the Moorland Association blog author has not only removed the context of the post mortem reports, but has also removed several of Natural England’s words, resulting in an entirely distorted (and thus false) ‘quote’.
Natural England wrote:
“The level of decomposition of the bodies led ZSL to conclude that it was not possible to explicitly link the death of either bird to the [shotgun] pellets”.
The Moorland Association wrote:
“This successful teamwork contrasts with today’s infantile press statement from Natural England which manages to contradict itself by saying “it is not possible to link the death of either bird” with illegal activity while also saying that their deaths “serve of evidence of ongoing killing”“.
The Moorland Association has removed the word “explicitly”, removed any reference to shotgun pellets, and then completely fabricated another ‘quote’ from Natural England (“serve of evidence of ongoing killing”).
The Moorland Association blog author is not identified but this level of distortion and misrepresentation has all the hallmarks of Andrew Gilruth, the Moorland Association’s current CEO, who has somewhat of a track record for this kind of shoddy behaviour.
Interestingly, the Moorland Association published its response prior to the Natural England blog being published, presumably after having sight of what Natural England was about to publish.
The Moorland Association has since revised its statement, once Natural England’s blog went live. Here’s how it currently looks:
Even if Andrew Gilruth didn’t write this snidey guff, you’d think as CEO he’d be responsbible for overseeing/approving whatever appears on the Moorland Association’s website.
For how much longer will he remain in post, I wonder? The Moorland Association’s reputation is already in tatters after Gilruth was expelled from the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG) earlier this year after the police accused him of “wasting time and distracting from the real work” of the Hen Harrier Taskforce (see here).
Natural England is currently undertaking a formal review of its ludicrous hen harrier brood meddling sham, with its findings due by the end of this month. Those findings will influence DEFRA’s decision on whether the sham is allowed to continue.
The Moorland Association has already stated it wants brood meddling licences to be issued as a routine part of grouse moor management.
With at least 130 killed/’missing’ hen harriers since the brood meddling sham trial began in 2018, and the Moorland Association’s continual denial and misrepresentation of the bleedin’ obvious, we’ll all be very interested in Natural England’s findings.
Meanwhile, for those who can no longer stomach what’s happening to hen harriers on grouse moors across the country, Wild Justice has another petition calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting. Please sign it HERE.
UPDATE 5th March 2025: Natural England quietly releases intriguing grouse moor location where two shot brood meddled hen harriers found dead (here)
There appears to be something very dodgy going on at NatureScot (NS), the Scottish Government’s statutory advisor on nature conservation.
There’s been some shocking behaviour in recent months, some of which I won’t write about just yet because legal proceedings may be imminent, but one thing I can write about is NS’s failure to provide documents I requested via FoI/EIR over two months ago in relation to the shambolic grouse moor licences.
As many of you will know, the new grouse moor licences, introduced this year as part of the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act, have already been sabotaged by the grouse shooting industry and as a result have been significantly weakened by a new licence condition introduced by NS, meaning the licences no longer cover an entire shooting estate but just the parts of the estate where red grouse are ‘taken or killed’, which on a driven grouse moor could effectively just mean a small area around a line of grouse butts (see previous blogs here, here, here, here, and here for background details).
Grouse moor photo by Richard Cross. Annotation by RPUK
I submitted an FoI request to NatureScot on Friday 11 October 2024 and asked for the following information:
A copy of the legal advice NatureScot received in relation to these changes.
A copy of all correspondence between NatureScot and Ministers in relation to these changes.
A copy of all external correspondence in relation to these changes.
A copy of all internal correspondence in relation to these changes.
NatureScot’s response was due back by 8 November 2024 (20 working days).
Predictably, NS failed to meet this deadline and wrote to me on 5 November with the following:
“We are having to extend the timescale to respond to your request. This means we must respond to your information request by 9 December 2024 [another 20 working days] at the latest, though we will do our best to respond before that“.
On Monday 9 December 2024 [40 working days since I submitted my request], NatureScot wrote again:
“We are working on our response but, unfortunately, we won’t be able to send it to you today…..I will contact you again later this week to update you on progress. We aim to send our response by the end of this week at the latest“.
On Thursday 12 December I wrote to NS to ask for an update and an explanation for the current delay as it was now well past 40 working days since I submitted my request.
On Friday 13 December, NatureScot replied:
“I am writing to let you know that NatureScot will not be able to provide you with the information you have requested today. We are giving careful consideration to releasing the information you have requested, and this is taking longer than expected. We are aiming to provide you with a response as soon as possible and will update you early next week“.
Given it’s now Wednesday (i.e. mid-week), and the ‘early’ part of this week has already passed, today I wrote to NatureScot again and pointed out that they’d already had 46 working days to comply with the FoI regs and as it’s now day 47, where is the information that I requested way back in October?
I’m not usually one for conspiracy theories but given what else I know NS has been up to behind the scenes these last few months, I’m deeply suspicious of these stalling tactics. You can only put so much down to incompetence; after that, it starts to look decidedly dodgy.
UPDATE 24 January 2025: NatureScot capitulated on grouse moor licensing after legal threats by game-shooting industry (here)
Nottinghamshire Police have issued an appeal for information after the discovery of ‘several dead birds of prey that were seen in suspicious and unnatural circumstances‘ near to the village of Bunny, in the Rushcliffe borough of south Nottinghamshire on Tuesday 10th December 2024.
They said: “We are appealing for the public’s help if you have seen any suspicious animal carcasses while out walking please report them to police and do not allow dogs or other animals to touch them as they may be poisoned.
If you have any information which might assist enquiries it can be reported online or via 101 quoting occurrence number 24000745675“.
They haven’t provided any further detail such as the species involved although their social media post was illustrated with an image of a buzzard.
Buzzard photo by Ruth Tingay
This is an excellent response from Nottinghamshire Police, not only to gather information during the early phase of an investigation but especially to warn the public of the risk of potential poisons being used that could be a danger to people and their pets.
Hopefully Nottinghamshire Police will provide an update once post mortems and toxicology tests have been undertaken.
Over the last 17 years or so, satellite-tracking technology has revolutionised our understanding of not only hen harrier ecology, but also the persistent, illegal killing of these birds on driven grouse moors across the UK.
Two organisations have been at the forefront of hen harrier satellite tracking – Natural England and the RSPB (with significant help from raptor study groups and others).
Satellite-tagged hen harrier. Photo by RSPB
For several years now, Natural England has been intermittently publishing the fates of the hen harriers it’s team has tagged (see here), but only with vague explanations about its definition of the category, ‘Missing, Fate Unknown’ (e.g. see here).
Of course, since then, a significant academic paper published in 2019 demonstrated what we all already knew – that patterns of satellite-tagged hen harrier disappearances suggested widespread illegal killing on British grouse moors (see here).
A further paper, published in 2023 and this time analysing the fates of hen harriers tagged by the RSPB, reached the same conclusion (see here).
Since 2018, I have been publishing details about the confirmed/suspected deaths of satellite-tagged (and a few untagged) hen harriers using data from both Natural England and the RSPB (this list currently stands at 130 illegally killed/’missing’ hen harriers although there are still more to add; those data are currently being withheld from the public – see here).
Now, for the first time, the RSPB has launched an interactive map hub showing the fates of hen harriers its team has satellite-tagged since 2014 (currently up to October 2024).
The RSPB’s interactive database includes the fates of 178 of the 226 hen harriers satellite-tagged so far. Some dead hen harriers are not included as they are subject to ongoing police investigations. The hen harriers that are still alive and are currently being tracked are also not included, for what should be obvious reasons.
Screen grab of the RSPB’s new interactive HH map hub
The interactive map hub allows users to filter the ‘fates’ of the RSPB’s tagged hen harriers into five different categories:
Confirmed Illegal persecution
Stop no malfunction (where the bird has disappeared in suspicious circumstances)
Natural
Unknown
Tag failure/expired
Detailed explanations of each of these categories are provided on the hub.
Users are also able to zoom in to the map to show the general area where a harrier died and you can manipulate the map to show terrain etc.
This facility is a useful and welcome addition to the public record on the fates of individual satellite-tracked hen harriers in the UK. I’m not sure it provides us with any wider, big-picture information that we don’t already know but that’s probably not the intention behind this interactive hub anyway. What it does do is provide the public with a level of detail to help them understand the scale of satellite-tagging efforts on the UK’s hen harriers and thus the veracity of the extent of the ongoing illegal killing of this species on many driven grouse moors.
Press release from PSNI (Police Service for Northern Ireland), 13 December 2024
POLICE CONFIRM BIRD POISONING IN ARMAGH
Police have confirmed that an adult bird of prey was found dead in the Forkhill area of Armagh in June of this year was poisoned.
It was reported on the 12th June that a Peregrine Falcon was found dead in the Forkhill area. The bird was retrieved by our search and rescue team and underwent testing to ascertain the exact circumstances, with enquiries ongoing the last number of months.
Constable Millen said: “We can now confirm the Peregrine Falcon found was poisoned with Carbofuran which is very concerning. This is not only a dangerous substance but it has been banned since 2001.
“We would remind the public if there is a suspicion of a crime, such as poisoning on any bird of prey in their local area, to leave the bird(s) and/or bait in situ and to call the police as soon as possible for officers to action.
“We have been working closely with our partners in Northern Ireland Environment Agency and National Wildlife Crime Unit and Northern Ireland Raptor Study Group regarding the matter and will continue to do so, in the hope to find those responsible.
“Police would appeal to anyone who has information on any suspected bird poisoning to please make contact via our non-emergency number 101, or online at http://www.psni.police.uk/makeareport/ or you can contact Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111 or online at http://crimestoppers-uk.org/.
ENDS
As far as I’m aware, nobody has ever been prosecuted for the illegal poisoning of any wildlife in Northern Ireland, which might explain why poisoning offences, especially against birds of prey, continue.
The Police waiting for six months before issuing an appeal for information about a poisoning crime won’t help, either.
Following the illegal poisoning of two white-tailed eagles in May 2023, found dead together on Northern Ireland’s only driven grouse moor at Glenwherry in the Antrim Hills (here), the Northern Ireland Raptor Study Group launched a petition calling for a ban on the possession of dangerous pesticides (here).
This petition is still live and has attracted almost 46,000 signatures. If you’d like to support it, please click here (you don’t have to be a resident/citizen of NI to sign – it’s open to anyone).
To learn more about recent raptor persecution incidents in Northern Ireland, this excellent report is well worth a read. It covers incidents reported in 2021 and 2022 (published May 2024).
The following is a guest blog by someone who wishes to remain anonymous, although I know their identity.
STOBO HOPE – NATURESCOT REFUSES LICENCE APPLICATION BY PRYOR & RICKETT SILVICLUTURE TO HUNT FOXES WITH 19 DOGS
Stobo Hopehead and Hammer Head, 2020
Many of you may have read about Stobo Hope in the Scottish Borders, with government body Scottish Forestry awarding a contract worth £2 million of taxpayers’ money to the Guernsey-registered Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund, managed by True North Real Asset Partners Ltd with CEO Harry Humble (see here), to plant a giant Sitka spruce plantation.
Stobo Hope appears to be another questionable forestry project approved by Scottish Forestry – the excellent Parkswatch Scotland blog has exposed many, one of the latest being Muckrach (see here and here).
A crowdfunder campaign by the Stobo Residents Action Group, with support from Wild Justice, Raptor Persecution UK and Parkswatch readers, helped raise nearly £30,000 for a judicial review. The decision by Scottish Forestry to approve the plantation without an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was challenged (see here).
Many people are grateful for your support in opposing this scheme, which seems to typify destruction of valuable upland habitats in Scotland. The judicial review was successful, with the Scottish Government eventually conceding before going to court – cancelling the £2 million contract, grant of consent and all associated funding (see here). The forestry work has apparently been halted by a court order since early September 2024 and Scottish Forestry have stated they will decide again if an EIA is needed (see here). [Ed: update, since this guest blog was written, news has emerged that the investment company behind the development work at Stobo Hope has lodged its own legal challenge against Scottish Forestry’s decision to halt all groundwork – see here].
Were dubious claims by Scottish Forestry about black grouse intended to help avoid an EIA?
After decades of claiming intensive grouse shooting is beneficial for the local economy and wildlife, some landowners and managers are now claiming to be ‘mitigating climate change’ by planting Sitka spruce. Instead of having a mixture of open moorland with some native woodland, where grouse, waders, raptors and other wildlife can co-exist, moorlands across the Southern Uplands and elsewhere are being destroyed by conifer plantations in the wrong place. This is reaching the point that black grouse are now facing extinction in the Southern Uplands, as explained in a report by the Southern Upland Partnership (see here).
Source: Southern Upland Partnership report – ‘Undoing the Silence of the Southern Uplands’
Following advice on 9 January 2024 from Mabbett and Associates Ltd, now called Arthian Ltd (see here), the ecological consultancy engaged and paid for by forestry agents Pryor and Rickett Silviculture to undertake the ecological surveys for Stobo, Scottish Forestry decided on 18 January 2024 that ‘this project is not likely to cause a significant negative effect to black grouse’, helping avoid an EIA.
This begs the question of whether Scottish Forestry employ their own ecologists to review and check such claims in applicants’ reports or do they just take these claims as read? Mabbett claimed ‘that whilst the scheme will have localised ecological impacts, it will not have a significant impact on the features identified withing [sic] previous habitat and ornithological surveys’:
Extract from 9 January 2024 letter from Mabbett to Pryor and Rickett Silviculture
Research has shown black grouse require several hundred of hectares of contiguous moorland habitat at a minimum for breeding. Due to the sedentary nature of black grouse, their breeding areas need to be close to other suitable moorlands for viable populations. Stobo and neighbouring woodland creation schemes, if approved, would together amount to losing nearly ten square kilometres of moorland.
Scottish Forestry claimed that there would be 246.4 ha of open ground within 1.5km of the lek as part of several so-called mitigation measures. Scottish Forestry failed to explain most of these open areas were fragments of relatively unsuitable habitat on exposed hilltops and ridgelines (with deer fences) further away from the lek and there would be 463.6 ha of trees replacing the areas of suitable habitat, so there is no longer any contiguous moorland.
Scottish Forestry stated that ‘the applicant has provided a Predator Control Management Plan to target particular species which could adversely impact upon black grouse’.
Scottish Forestry ignored the RSPB’s earlier prediction in September 2023 that the Stobo lek would become extinct:
In addition to all the damage on site by the forestry managers from groundworks, drains, forest tracks and planting Sitka spruce, herbicide was applied across vast areas of heather moorland in August 2023, five months before a contract was approved by Scottish Forestry (see here), who claimed they didn’t notice this herbicide damage for a whole year.
Herbicide damage at Stobo Hope, July 2024
The Stobo Residents Action Group explained that this herbicide would have ‘wiped out important plant communities including heather, blaeberry and many species of wildflowers, grasses, ferns, lichens and mosses’ thus ‘destroying the food supply for mammals, birds, reptiles and invertebrates including the red-listed black grouse’. It is understood up to 400 hectares could have been sprayed with herbicide.
Pryor and Rickett Silviculture applied to NatureScot for a licence to hunt foxes at Stobo with 19 dogs
Many readers may be aware that the new Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023 (see here) prohibits fox hunting with more than two dogs without a licence. This legislation was intended to close loopholes in the now repealed Protection of Wild Mammals (Scotland) Act 2002, which effectively allowed fox hunting to continue for sporting purposes.
NatureScot has authority to grant licences for hunting with more than two dogs under certain ‘exceptions’; (i) the management of wild mammals above ground and (ii) environmental benefit (see here). Campaigners have argued that this new licensing system still has loopholes, allowing fox hunting to continue under these ‘exceptions’ (see here and here).
A FoI from NatureScot has revealed that forestry agents Pryor and Rickett Silviculture Ltd (see here) applied to NatureScot for a licence in March 2024 to use 19 foxhounds to hunt foxes for ‘environmental benefit’ at Stobo. It was claimed this would help protect black grouse from predation from foxes as part of its ‘Predator Control Management Plan’ also targeting corvids and stoats, using Larsen and Perdix spring traps.
The applicant claimed that black grouse were ‘present across the site, with multiple areas identified as Lek’s [sic] and Breeding sites’ (but is unclear what constitutes ‘breeding sites’), also claiming ‘the site is also understood to be a significant movement corridor for Black Grouse between neighbouring glens’:
It was claimed management proposals ‘have been designed to increase the quality of the habitat available for black grouse within the site’. However, it claims that of the 1080 ha Stobo site ‘800 ha +/- is in the plans to be planted as a woodland creation project’ with a ‘Black Grouse Habitat Management Area’ of 145 hectares, of which just 84 hectares is open ground:
The applicants claimed to be ‘partnering with the University of Edinburgh to establish a long-term study of the black grouse management area’:
This claim was also made in the Stobo Woodland Creation Operational Plan submitted to Scottish Forestry by Pryor and Rickett Silviculture on behalf of True North Real Asset Partners Ltd:
A FoI response from the University of Edinburgh contradicted this claim, stating they had ‘not been engaged to put in place long-term research on black grouse’. True North Real Asset Partners Ltd had approached the University for discussions but no research collaboration resulted.
Did the applicants approach Edinburgh Napier University as an alternative organisation for a research study as the applicants also made several references to Edinburgh Napier University?
A FoI response from Edinburgh Napier University explained there were no plans for Edinburgh Napier University researchers using Stobo as a long-term research site:
Access for walkers on Hammer Head blocked by new deer fence, a major cause of mortality for grouse species. The metal batons supposed to deter bird strikes are too short and too far apart, contravening guidance by the Forestry Commission (see here).
Applicants attempt to justify reasons for licence application
NatureScot require applicants to justify the proposed number of guns and dogs. Five guns and nineteen dogs were proposed, with the applicant claiming if only two dogs were allowed the ‘guns’ (people with the guns) would become ‘very cold and bored and unwilling to partake in future fox control work’:
NatureScot also asks applicants to demonstrate all alternative options to achieving the licensable purpose, explaining that applicants cannot use the presence of ‘dense cover’ to justify the use of dogs. The applicant appears to rule out alternatives such as cage traps, diversionary feeding and fencing, claiming it was unsafe to increase the number of guns ‘without the use of a pack of dogs’:
The ‘high level of ground cover’ mentioned sounds rather like ‘dense cover’. The picture of a spruce plantation below gives an idea of the ‘high level of ground cover’ or ‘dense cover’ that would occur in the long-term, which also hardly looks like suitable black grouse habitat.
Dense spruce plantation
Reasons for refusal of the licence application by NatureScot
A licence can only be granted if NatureScot considers three tests have been met; (i) Licensable purpose, (ii) No alternative solutions to achieve purpose, and (iii) Contribution to long-term environmental benefit.
The first test was passed as NatureScot were satisfied there was a purpose in controlling foxes, potentially reducing black grouse predation. The second test was not passed as the applicants had not fully demonstrated that there were no alternative solutions to controlling the fox population without increasing dog numbers. The third test was also not passed as NatureScot were not satisfied a long-term environmental benefit would be achieved:
Previous footage from the League Against Cruel Sports, showing a fox being thrown to a pack of hounds. This footage is unrelated to the Stobo estate.
Criticisms by NatureScot
NatureScot said that the loss, fragmentation and deterioration of suitable habitats in the uplands from commercial forests was leading to a decline in black grouse. NatureScot stated the proposed mitigation measure in the plan ‘to plant commercial plantations with edges of mixed broadleaves will still unlikely sufficiently limit the impacts of the planting of the large conifer plantations on the open moorland that black grouse prefer’.
NatureScot quoted the applicants (who had given reasons for declines in black grouse to justify predator control), stating ‘Black grouse like the ground cover in young plantations, but as these develop into solid conifer thickets they tend to leave’. The loss of suitable habitat for black grouse and absence of ‘a wider-scale and longer-term environmental plan for addressing black grouse conservation’ under the proposed scheme was mentioned. NatureScot explained that the applicant ‘had not provided sufficient detail or explanation to demonstrate how the activity will be monitored and therefore how it will achieve long-term or significant environmental benefit’.
NatureScot also questioned why it was not possible to use two dogs to flush foxes to waiting guns.
The scale of the commercial plantations at Stobo
For the Stobo plantation, of the planted area, 72% is Sitka spruce, with a further 10% of commercial Scots pine and Douglas fir, so commercial coniferous forestry amounts to 82% of the planted area. The map below does not show three new plantations to the north, west, south or a proposed plantation to the east, creating a giant spruce plantation across what was previously contiguous moorland. Nearly ten square kilometres could be cumulatively planted, affecting fourteen square kilometres:
Supposed final planting plan for Stobo. Blue indicates Sitka spruce, green Douglas fir and orange Scots pine. Native broadleaves are indicated by brown while light grey indicates open areas.
Why did the application fail to declare if the dog handler didn’t have wildlife crime convictions?
Although the completed licence application stated ‘no’ in response to a question asking if the applicant or anyone working under the licence being applied for had been ‘convicted of a wildlife crime or disqualified from keeping dogs’, when the same question was put for the dog handler (whose details were redacted), this was unanswered. Perhaps this was missed out by accident or the applicant was uncertain about the background of the dog handler?
‘Greenwashing’ to try and create a loophole in foxhunting legislation?
After reading this licence application, one cannot help thinking that the applicants were trying to take advantage of current black grouse presence to have fox hunting with nineteen foxhounds for sporting purposes. At the time of writing, no licences for hunting with more than two dogs for ‘environmental benefit’ have been granted anywhere – only for preventing serious damage to livestock, woodland or crops (see here).
A FoI response from July 2024 showed that of eight licence applications for the ‘environmental benefit’ option, seven were refused and one was frozen, pending further information, suggesting that NatureScot are restricting applicants from exploiting possible loopholes in the new legislation.
Are Scottish Forestry ignoring ecological impacts of new woodlands becoming sporting estates?
It is understood many organisations involved with conservation of golden eagles, black grouse and other projects in the Southern Uplands may be reluctant to publicly object to, or criticise forestry proposals because this could jeopardise future funding from the Scottish Government and Scottish Forestry.
It appears Scottish Forestry are exploiting those lack of objections, to help avoid EIAs. Scottish Forestry have also been publicly funding new woodland creation schemes that subsequently become overrun with released pheasants, red-legged partridges and even mallard ducks for recreational shooting, with significant negative ecological impacts (see here), even in Scotland’s so-called National Parks as explained on Parkswatch (see here).
These game bird releases have multiple detrimental impacts, such as on native woodland vegetation and remaining open areas of grassland. This occurs through factors such as eutrophication of soil, losing herb rich vegetation and birds eating invertebrates and even reptiles.
Scottish Forestry do not appear to account for the significant negative future environmental impacts of intensive recreational game shooting in their assessment of woodland grant scheme applications. It would be interesting if the Stobo scheme was being considered for future game shooting by the landowners and managers, in addition to its now foiled plans for foxhunting.
Scottish Forestry have said that they will ‘now screen the project again’, to see if an EIA is required, taking into account ‘all other new relevant information’ (see here).
Will Scottish Forestry again be selective in choosing information and sources, continuing to incorrectly maintain ‘this project is not likely to cause a significant negative effect to black grouse’?
Will Scottish Forestry continue to align its claims with those of True North Real Asset Partners Ltd, whose CEO Harry Humble asserted in the Scotsman (see here) that ‘the scheme has been designed specifically to favour black grouse, with an enhanced mix of species and open space provision in line with best practice derived from decades of research’.
Will Scottish Forestry continue to disregard warnings by reputable ecologists and the RSPB that the black grouse lek at Stobo will disappear, with NatureScot confirming black grouse ‘tend to leave’ (plantations of the kind at Stobo), as corroborated by peer-reviewed research?
South Yorkshire Police have issued the following press release (dated 9 December 2024):
WITNESS APPEAL AFTER BIRD SHOT IN PEAK DISTRICT
We are appealing for information after a protected bird was reportedly shot in Bradfield, near Sheffield.
On 25 August, a dead raven was found in a field near Agden Side Road, Bradfield, in the Peak District.
The incident was reported to the RSPB who collected the bird. An x-ray of the bird showed that it had been shot.
It is believed the bird was shot between 24 August and 25 August.
Since the incident, officers have been following several lines of enquiry and we are now appealing for anybody who may have any information about the incident to contact us.
You can report information to us online via live chat or by calling 101, quoting incident number 662 of 9 September 2024.
The Agden Side Road lies just beyond the boundary of two grouse moors (Strines and Broomhead) in the Peak District National Park.
This part of the Peak District National Park, dominated by land managed for driven grouse shooting, has a long and sordid history of raptor persecution incidents (e.g. see here, here, here, here, here etc).
Prosecutions are rare, largely due to the difficulty of identifying a named individual to link to a crime that has taken place in a relatively remote landscape with few witnesses.
This is certainly not helped by South Yorkshire Police, who rarely cover themselves in glory with timely investigations, although to be fair unless the shooting of this raven was witnessed and recorded, the police have little to go on.
Yes, the usual suspects will be in the frame but for a prosecution the police need evidence – they can’t just prosecute on the basis of recurrent past criminal behaviour in the area. Although waiting three and a half months to issue an appeal for witnesses, as they’ve done in this case, won’t help.
This scenario happens over and over again in areas managed for driven grouse shooting, even inside our National Parks, and has been happening for decades. Raptors are routinely shot, trapped and poisoned and the criminals get away with their crimes time after time after time.
This is one (of several) reasons why Wild Justice is currently running a petition calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting. The petition currently stands at 30,000 signatures but it needs 100,000 to trigger a parliamentary debate. If you’d like to sign it, please click HERE.
UPDATE 9 June 2025: Another Raven found shot dead next to grouse moor in notorious persecution hotspot in Peak District National Park (here)
The saga at Stobo Hope in the Scottish Borders continues…
In July this year many of you supported a crowdfunder set up by the Stobo Residents Action Group who were taking a judicial review against the Scottish Government agency Scottish Forestry’s decision to approve a commercial woodland project, including a large sitka spruce plantation, on valuable moorland habitat in the Scottish Borders, a site important for many species but particularly for black grouse and golden eagles. The main premise of the legal challenge was that Scottish Forestry approved the work application after wrongly determining that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required (see here).
That legal challenge was successful and in September, the £2 million tax payer forestry grant, and all related groundwork, was cancelled until a new decision is made (see here).
Widespread application of herbicide on site. Photo via Stobo Residents Action Group
Today, in an exclusive article published in The Scotsman, it was revealed that the investment company behind the development of Stobo Hope, Guernsey-based True North Real Asset Partners, has lodged an application for judicial review against Scottish Forestry’s decision to halt the work.
Scottish Forestry had previously claimed that it was unaware of the company’s intention to undertake large-scale herbicide spraying prior to the original planning application. Now True North Real Asset Partners say the information was “clearly contained” in documents submitted to the agency.
It’ll now be up to the Court of Session in Edinburgh to determine whether True North Asset Partners has a legitimate claim for judicial review and if permission is granted, we can expect a full court hearing later in 2025, unless Scottish Forestry decides to settle.
This application for judicial review isn’t the only news from the Stobo Hope project. I’ll soon be publishing a guest blog on a licence application earlier this year for fox hunting across the site, apparently for ‘environmental benefit’.
UPDATE 13 December 2024: Stobo Hope – NatureScot refuses licence application by Pryor & Rickett Silviculture to hunt foxes with 19 dogs (guest blog) here
Raptor Persecution UK 