Author: RaptorPersecutionUK

Stakeholders to give evidence tomorrow on Scottish Government’s proposed snare ban & extended powers for SSPCA

Tomorrow (Weds 8 November 2023) will see another evidence session in front of the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee on the Scottish Government’s proposed ban on all snares and a proposed extension of powers for the Scottish SPCA.

This is all part of the Committee’s scrutiny of the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Bill. For new blog readers, this is the Bill that has been introduced by the Scottish Government in response to the recommendations made in the 2019 Werritty Review and is designed to bring in licensing for grouse moor management and introduce measures to put an end to the illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors.

Last week the Committee heard evidence from Environment Minister Gillian Martin MSP. The video archive of that session can be seen here and the transcript can be read here.

Tomorrow’s session will include evidence from various stakeholders, first on the issue of a snare ban, and then on increased SSPCA powers, as follows:

SNARING BAN panel:

INCREASED POWERS FOR SCOTTISH SPCA panel:

I think it’s fair to predict, given the participants listed for both panels, that there’ll be very little support for the proposed snare ban and for extended powers for the SSPCA, except from Libby Anderson, Bob Elliot, Mike Flynn and Ian Thomson.

We already know the position of each organisation on these issues because it’s been talked to death in previous evidence sessions held earlier this summer (and prior to that, multiple times over the last ten years as these topics have been raised again and again). For whatever reason, it’s been decided that the Committee needs to hear from everyone again, simply because the Scottish Government held yet another public consultation this year (which resulted in overwhelming public support for a ban on all snares and for increased powers for the SSPCA – see here).

This’ll just be yet another opportunity for the grouse shooting lobby to claim that rural Armageddon will befall the Scottish countryside if barbaric snares that cause animal suffering are banned and if the SSPCA are permitted to investigate the wildlife crimes that seem to happen on a lot of driven grouse moors.

You can watch proceedings live on Scottish Parliament TV (here) and there’ll be a video archive and a transcript available shortly afterwards.

The session begins at 9am on Wednesday morning although the Committee is dealing with two other items on the agenda before these panels start.

UPDATE: Video archive of the session available to watch HERE

UPDATE: Transcript of the evidence sessions available here (from p27):

officialreport-rural-affairs-mtg-8nov2023Download

UPDATE 9 November 2023: Scottish Environment Minister proposes full ban on all snares (here)

UPDATE 15 November 2023: Supplementary evidence on snares from Scottish Animal Welfare Committee (here)

Court transcript from Packham v Fieldsports Channel Ltd & Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke (libel action)

As reported, yesterday Chris Packham won his libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd and one of their journalists, Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke and has been awarded substantial damages (here).

Photo by Fabian Harrison

The case concluded with a statement read out in court in front of Mr Justice Griffiths, as follows:

final-statement-in-open-court-6-nov-2023-packham-v-fieldsportsDownload

Today there has been what I will describe as ‘an interesting statement’ in the press by one of the defendants. I won’t repeat it here but suffice to say, Chris’s legal team is examining it.

Further developments in this case may arise as a consequence. I’ll report them here when I’m able.

UPDATE 14th November 2023: Reactions to Chris Packham’s successful libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd & journalist Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke here

Chris Packham wins libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd & Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke

Press release from Leigh Day (6 November 2023)

Chris Packham settles defamation claim with Fieldsports Channel after it admits death threat claims were untrue.

Environmental campaigner and naturalist Chris Packham CBE has settled a defamation claim against the website Fieldsports Channel after it falsely accused him of writing a fake death threat letter to himself.

The online shooting and hunting channel has agreed to pay Mr Packham substantial damages and contribute to his legal costs as well as provide an undertaking never to repeat the allegation.

In June 2022, Fieldsports Channel and one of its journalists, Ben O’Rourke, published an online video and article alleging the TV presenter had written a fake death threat letter to himself and lied about it being sent by an anonymous third party. The serious allegation was not put to Mr Packham directly to offer him right of reply.

In bringing the claim against Fieldsports Channel Ltd and Mr O’Rourke, Mr Packham’s lawyers argued the allegations were plainly baseless and had caused him enormous reputational damage and distress. They pointed out that the only possible basis for the allegation was handwriting analysis of the letter which has since been comprehensively discredited.

Of particular concern to Mr Packham was the implication he had lied to his family about the death threat, knowing it would cause them considerable anxiety. Also, that he had lied to, and knowingly wasted the time of, Hampshire Police, who investigated the letter and on whom he relies for his and his family’s safety.

Mr Packham’s distress was later compounded by Fieldsports Channel’s derisive response to his claim, in particular mounting caricatures of his head on a “trophy wall” at the British Shooting Show in February 2023. Mr Packham has been the victim of arson attacks and has received numerous death threats, and he considers its actions to have been utterly reckless and irresponsible in that context.

As well as paying Mr Packham substantial damages and contributing to his legal costs, Fieldsports Channel and Mr O’Rourke have agreed never to repeat the allegation and will publish a legal statement, which is also to be read in the High Court on 6 November 2023, explaining the matter on its platforms.

Mr Packham was represented by Mr Jonathan Price and Ms Claire Overman of Doughty Street Chambers, who are instructed by partner Tessa Gregory and solicitor Carol Day of law firm Leigh Day.

Chris Packham said:

“Fieldsports TV displayed a complete contempt of even the basic codes of real journalism. They allowed a vicious vendetta to drive a targeted catalogue of lies in an attempt to destroy my credibility, integrity and reputation. Further, even when involved in this litigation they recklessly posted images of myself contrived to fuel hatred amongst fire-arms owners when they knew I was already the victim of targeted attacks from members of this community. They also failed to show any respect for the legal process. As a consequence, Fieldsports TV have now issued a full apology and agreed to pay substantial costs and damages. My message is clear – if anyone publishes or perpetuates lies about me or my conduct I will challenge them and I will win.”

Carol Day, solicitor at law firm Leigh Day said:

“Our client Mr Packham was the subject of an egregious slur against his reputation based on the flimsiest of evidence that failed to stand up to even the most basic form of scrutiny. To be accused of writing a fake death threat to himself, with all the consequences that brings for his family and the authorities, was a highly damaging attack on Mr Packham’s integrity. The fact he was then mocked publicly for objecting to these defamatory remarks shows how little regard the defendants had for the reputation of others. Our client can only hope that lessons have been learned from this sorry episode and it brings an end to these gratuitous attacks on Mr Packham’s character by people who simply disagree with his views.”

 ENDS

UPDATE 7th November 2023: Court transcript from Packham v Fieldsports Channel Ltd & Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke [libel action] here.

UPDATE 14th November 2023: Reactions to Chris Packham’s successful libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd & journalist Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke here

UPDATE 28th November 2023: Daily Mail published apology to Chris Packham for inaccurate reporting of his libel win against Fieldsports Channel Ltd here

UPDATE 10 December 2023: Shooting Times forced to publish apology to Chris Packham for inaccurate reporting of his successful libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd (here)

Libel proceedings: Chris Packham v Fieldsports Channel Ltd & Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke expected to conclude on Monday 6 November 2023

As many of you are aware, Chris Packham launched libel proceedings against Fieldsports Channel Ltd and one of its journalists, Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke, in January 2023 after they published what Chris’s lawyers describe as ‘defamatory and unfounded‘ material about him in 2022 (see here and here).

This is a related but separate libel claim to the proceedings Chris won earlier this year against Dominic Wightman and Nigel Bean for defamatory material published by Country Squire Magazine between 2020-2021 (see here).

Photo by Jo Charlesworth

Initially the three Directors of Fieldsports Channel Ltd (Charlie Jacoby, James Westbrook and David Wright) refused an early opportunity to accept their error and make amends and instead decided to contest the case.

The case is now expected to conclude at the High Court in front of Mr Justice Griffiths on Monday 6th November 2023.

A press statement from Chris and his legal representatives can be expected immediately after the hearing.

Last ditch attempt by grouse moor lobby to water down Scottish Government’s proposed ban on snares

Yesterday, Scottish Environment Minister Gillian Martin MSP gave evidence to the Rural Affairs Committee on the Government’s proposed ban on snares and an extension of powers to the SSPCA as part of its Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill (here).

The video recording is available to watch here and a transcript should be available in the next day or so. [Update: transcript now available at foot of this blog post]

It was an assured and confident performance by the Minister and I admired her patience in dealing with thinly-veiled, repeated attempts by some Committee members to portray the Government’s proposals as an ‘attack’ on the countryside, and especially on gamekeepers.

The Minister was clear – the use of snares, even those cynically re-named as ‘humane cable restraints’, is inherently cruel, no matter who is deploying the snare and no matter for what purpose.

It became apparent during the Minister’s evidence that following a meeting with stakeholders from the grouse moor management sector in September, they had wanted to propose an alternative to a complete ban on the use of snares and instead had ideas about a licensing scheme for their use. The Minister, in all fairness, invited them to submit their proposals in writing for her consideration.

The Minister told the Committee yesterday that she’d received the licensing proposal late on Monday evening (30 October 2023) and that she hadn’t yet had chance to review it but would do so this month, and in time for the Committee to consider her decision for their Stage 1 Report, which is due towards the end of November.

The snare-licensing proposal from the grouse moor lobby has now been published on the Rural Affairs Committee’s website, as follows:

wildlife-bill-retention-of-humane-cable-restraints-under-licence-sleDownload

What’s immediately apparent about the grouse moor managers’ proposed licensing scheme is that they pretend to be proposing “a narrow range of licensable purposes” [for the continued use of snares] but in fact what they propose is the continued use of snares for all the same purposes they currently use snares, i.e.

(i) preventing, or reducing the risk of, predation causing harm to wildlife or gamebirds,
(ii) preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops,
vegetables or fruit;
(iii) preventing, or reducing the risk of, disease in people or animals;
(iv) conserving, restoring, enhancing or managing the natural environment; and
(v) for scientific, research or educational purposes.

Fundamentally, they have failed to grasp the underlying argument against the use of snares, and that is, as the Minister made clear yesterday, that they are inherently cruel, whether they’re called ‘snares’ or ‘humane cable restraints’ (see here). There’s nothing in the grouse moor managers’ proposed licensing scheme that will end the indiscriminate suffering of animals caught in a snare, and nothing in there that should change her mind against a total ban on the use of all snares with no exceptions, as the Welsh Government has recently enacted.

Given the preliminary analysis of the responses made to the Scottish Government’s recent public consultation on the use of snares, it is also very clear that the public supports a ban on the use of all snares and does not support any exceptions to the ban:

Importantly, the public consultation did not ask the specific question about whether a licensing scheme for the use of snares should be considered (although question 4 comes close and the public responded with a resounding 73% ‘no’) so if the Minister is minded to give any credence to the grouse moor managers’ proposed licensing scheme, I think the Government would be obliged to consult on that specific option.

Accepting a last-ditch attempt by the grouse moor managers to water down the Government’s proposed legislation, without providing an opportunity for the public to comment, would be wide open for a legal challenge and I dare say there’d be a number of organisations prepared to take up such a challenge.

UPDATE 4th November 2023: The transcript from the evidence session on 1st Nov is now available:

officialreport-rural-affairs-islands-committee-1nov2023-1Download

UPDATE 9 November 2023: Scottish Environment Minister proposes full ban on all snares (here)

Environment Minister to give evidence on snare ban & extending investigatory powers of SSPCA

Scottish Environment Minister Gillian Martin MSP will give evidence tomorrow morning (Wednesday 1 November 2023) to the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee as part of the Committee’s continued Stage 1 scrutiny of the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Bill.

For new blog readers, this is the Bill that has been introduced by the Scottish Government in response to the recommendations made in the 2019 Werritty Review and is designed to bring in licensing for grouse moor management and introduce measures to put an end to the illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors.

The Minister’s previous appearance before the Committee in June 2023

The Minister will be joined by some specialist civil servants from the Government’s Wildlife Management Unit who have been responsible for drafting this Bill.

The focus of tomorrow’s evidence session will be on the Government’s proposed ban on snares and on extending the investigatory powers of the Scottish SPCA.

A further evidence session will take place next week (Weds 8 November) where stakeholder groups will be providing evidence on these two issues. I’ll provide more detail about that nearer the time.

The Stage 1 debate, where the whole of the Scottish Parliament has an opportunity to discuss/accept/challenge the Committee’s Stage 1 report in the main Chamber, is scheduled for Wednesday 29 November 2023.

The clerks to the Rural Affairs Committee have prepared some helpful background notes to tomorrow’s meeting for those who may be new to the subject:

rural-affairs-committee-notes-for-1-nov-2023-mtgDownload

You may recall that the Scottish Government recently held (yet another!) public consultation on its proposal to ban snares and its proposal to extend the investigatory powers of the SSPCA. That consultation closed on 3 October 2023 and I know that many of you participated (thank you!).

In preparation for tomorrow’s hearing, the Environment Minister today wrote to the Rural Affairs Committee with a preliminary analysis of those 5,289 consultation responses.

The headline news from that analysis is that a significant majority of respondents support the Government’s proposals to ban snares and so called ‘humane cable restraints’ (70% in support, compared to just 29% against), and a significant majority of respondents support the Government’s proposals to extend the investigatory powers of the SSPCA (71% in support, compared to just 26% against).

Here is the Minister’s letter to the Committee:

wmm-bill-consultation-analysis-update-snares-sspca-consultation-31oct2023Download

Tomorrow’s hearing begins at 9am and can be watched live on Scottish Parliament TV (here). A video recording will also be available for those who can’t watch the live proceedings and of course there’ll be a transcript of the session which I’ll post here as soon as it becomes available (usually a couple of days afterwards).

UPDATE 2nd November 2023: Last ditch attempt by grouse moor lobby to water down Scottish Government’s proposed ban on snares (here)

UPDATE 4th November 2023: The transcript from the session is now available:

officialreport-rural-affairs-islands-committee-1nov2023Download

UPDATE 9 November 2023: Scottish Environment Minister proposes full ban on all snares (here)

‘No case to answer’ – Hampshire Police close ridiculous ‘Chris Packham sniffed a goshawk’ investigation

Chris Packham has ‘no case to answer’ says Hampshire Police, who have now closed their investigation into alleged goshawk disturbance earlier this summer.

It was a story that the right wing, pro-shooting press seized upon with glee in August – the news that Chris Packham was being investigated by Hampshire Police after a ‘shooting enthusiast’ reported him after watching Chris sniffing some goshawk chicks during a clip filmed for The One Show in June (see here and here).

The lurid headlines were so tediously predictable – ‘Chris Packham faces six months in jail if found guilty’ and ‘Chris Packham investigated for wildlife crime’, in my opinion all written with the express intention to stir up even more anti-Packham rhetoric amongst those too stupid to think for themselves, as evidenced by comments on social media by Packham-haters that “Any bad publicity is good” (see here).

The great irony is that many of those complaining about the alleged ‘disturbance’ to those goshawk chicks belong to an industry that consistently and criminally targets and kills goshawks because they’re seen as a threat to their gamebird stocks. It’s strange, isn’t it, how that same industry remains silent when actual crimes against goshawks are uncovered and publicised or when yet another gamekeeper is convicted for killing birds of prey.

This case has been the latest assault in a long-running, relentless and malicious hate campaign against Chris (e.g. see here, here, here, here, here, here and here), often curated by the hunting/gamebird shooting industry that despises him for his outspoken criticism of their activities and in many cases, their crimes. More fool them though because ordinary, rational members of the general public can see straight through it as evidenced by the support Chris received when he took two libel actions recently (see here), one of which Chris has already won (here) and the other (here) will continue at the High Court on 6th November 2023.

The news that Hampshire Police have closed their investigation has been reported in The Telegraph as follows:

The naturalist Chris Packham did not commit a criminal offence when he sniffed goshawk chicks on television because he was behaving in a “purely instinctive” way, police have concluded.

The BBC Springwatch and Earth presenter was reported to police after he appeared on The One Show inspecting three of the birds of prey in the New Forest this summer.

It was feared that the “sniffing incident” amounted to a “disturbance” of the wild chicks, which are a protected species, because they were out of their nests.

At the time, the environmental campaigner wrote on social media that he was appearing on the show and would “get up close and very personal with some New Forest goshawks”.

Officers from Hampshire Police launched an investigation amid claims the presenter, 62, had breached the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 when he was filmed celebrating the return of goshawks to the Hampshire national park.

Mr Packham later told The Telegraph no harm had come to the birds and he was simply smelling them to detect their “characteristic scent or perfume” while they were weighed, sexed and ringed in line with a licence issued by the British Trust for Ornithology.

Under the licence goshawks may be removed from their nests for scientific and conservation purposes, including ringing and recording various biometrics. Ringers are also permitted to photograph the birds as long as it does not disturb or harm them.

Hampshire Police has written to the man who complained – an amateur shooting enthusiast who does not want to be named – to say that no charges will be brought and the case has now been closed.

The email said officers concluded the birds did not suffer any harm during the four-minute and 30-second television clip seen by millions of viewers.

The investigating officer, part of the force’s specialist rural crime unit, said: “The bird in question has not appeared to have been caused any harm and nothing was done with intent to harm any birds or act recklessly.”

He added that Mr Packham’s decision to sniff the birds “were purely instinctive”, adding that “we have received no other complaints about this matter and this will not be in the public interest to take it any further”.

The officer, who said he saw the programme when it was broadcast in June, added that the “evidential threshold test for any prosecution” had not been met.

Mr Packham on Friday welcomed the police decision and accused the fieldsports lobby of targeting him and wasting police time.

“The anonymous idiot who made this ludicrous and vindictive complaint should be sorry that even a nanosecond of police time was wasted,” he told The Telegraph. 

“Once again the fieldsports community has blasted themselves in the foot trying to put my nose out of joint.”

A Hampshire Police spokesman said: “The footage has been viewed and no criminal offence was identified. The investigation has been filed.

“Any issues relating to an alleged breach of licence would be dealt with by the organisation who issued that licence, not the police.”

The BBC has always insisted that protocols were followed during the filming at all times.

After it emerged that Mr Packham had been reported to police over the “sniffing incident” experts warned amateur ornithologists not to sniff wild birds amid fears it could spread avian flu.

ENDS

Scottish Raptor Study Group holds Parliamentary reception to discuss details of grouse moor reform Bill

The Scottish Raptor Study Group (SRSG) was generously hosted at the Scottish Parliament earlier this week by John Mason MSP, for a drop-in reception to discuss the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill, which is currently at Stage One of its progress through Parliament.

SRSG Chair Keith Duncan and John Mason MSP. Photo: SRSG

For new blog readers, this is the Bill that has been introduced by the Scottish Government in response to the recommendations made in the 2019 Werritty Review and is designed to bring in licensing for grouse moor management and introduce measures (such as a revoked licence) to put an end to the illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors.

MSPs in attendance at the reception included Edward Mountain (Conservative), Findlay Carson (Conservative), Rachael Hamilton (Conservative), Colin Smyth (Labour), Rhoda Grant (Labour), Jim Fairlie (SNP), Bob Doris (SNP), Elena Whitham (SNP), John Mason (SNP) and Ariane Burgess (Green).

The SRSG viewed the event as a valuable and productive meeting, attracting cross-party MSPs and discussions focused on the following key themes:

  • The raptor persecution data that underpin the Scottish Government’s decision to bring in the Bill;
  • Whether or not the proposed licence period should be greater than one year;
  • Issues around white tailed sea eagles, ravens and sheep;
  • How the licensing regime should operate and the amount of administration involved;
  • How any revocation or suspension of a licence might happen and discussion of the existing General Licence restrictions and what evidence NatureScot would be looking for when considering a sanction on a grouse-shooting estate;
  • Concern around potentially vexatious claims;
  • In which specific areas birds of prey are being persecuted or ‘disappearing’ in suspicious circumstances;  
  • Change to burning dates (finishing earlier than the current regulations allow);  
  • And how the Bill is now encompassing more areas (i.e. SSPCA powers and snaring).
Ian Thomson, Kelvin Thomson, Keith Duncan, Logan Steele & Duncan Orr-Ewing. Photo: SRSG

The Scottish Raptor Study Group was represented by Kelvin Thomson (Advocacy Officer, SRSG), Keith Duncan (Chair, Highland Raptor Study Group & current Chair of the SRSG’s National Management Committee), Logan Steele (Communications Secretary, SRSG) and Duncan Orr-Ewing (Chair, Central Raptor Study Group). Also in the delegation was Ian Thomson, Head of Investigations at RSPB Scotland.

The Bill is currently still with the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee (and interesting that a number of Committee members attended this reception) as they continue to prepare their Stage One report, which will then be debated in Parliament.

The date of that Stage One debate keeps being put back, mainly to accommodate the most recent consultation (the latest in a long, long line!) on proposed new powers for the SSPCA and a proposed ban on snaring, which the Rural Affairs Committee would like to include in its report.

It is currently anticipated that the debate will take place in mid-late December, prior to the Xmas recess (which begins on 23 Dec 2023), but don’t hold your breath!

Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust begins 100-year rewilding project on former grouse shooting estate in Cairngorms National Park

Press release from Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust (25 Oct 2023)

Durrell Reveals Major New Scottish Rewilding Project

An 18,500-acre estate in Perthshire is set to be the home of a 100-year rewilding project managed by Durrell.  

The Trust has secured the lease for Dalnacardoch Estate, which sits entirely within the Cairngorms National Park, halfway between Blair Atholl and Dalwhinnie.  

 This will be Durrell’s first project in Scotland. 

Dalnacardoch Estate. Photo: Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust

The team has a long-term vision to revive the estate by applying its proven techniques to restoring habitats and ecological processes, as well as recovering iconic missing species such as the capercaillie, which is currently facing extinction in Scotland.   

Durrell’s scientific approach combines hands-on species management with habitat restoration while working alongside local communities and training conservationists.   

Significant ecological audits of the site, to establish the geography, species and habitats, are already taking place. These surveys will be ongoing and continue to inform the long-term strategic vision for rewilding the estate in line with the interests of the wider community and the requirements of being in a national park.  

Durrell’s CEO, Dr Lesley Dickie, said: “This is a transformational moment in the Durrell story. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth with a multitude of diminished species and missing ecological functions. We are proud to be a British charity and we have been looking for a landscape-scale restoration project in the UK for several years.  

“Leasing the Dalnacardoch estate offers an incredible opportunity to demonstrate our approach to conservation and transition this estate to a nature-positive landscape that will benefit both local people and wildlife.”   

Durrell’s intention is to have a managed transition away from Dalnacardoch’s historic use as a sporting estate. Instead moving towards a diversified range of activities that will provide economic, social and environmental benefits. 

The team’s immediate focus is on engaging with neighbouring estates and potential partners.  

 Grant Moir, Chief Executive of the Cairngorms National Park Authority, said: “We’re delighted to be working with the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust on the long-term restoration of Dalnacardoch Estate. This collaboration will be vital in helping achieve our National Park Partnership Plan commitments, particularly around ecological restoration, net zero, woodland expansion, peatland restoration, and green skills and training.   

 “It’s also encouraging that Durrell plans to work so closely with neighbouring landowners and with the local community, developing a lasting vision that reflects the unique environmental and cultural heritage of the area.”  

 Professor Carl Jones MBE, Durrell’s Chief Scientist, said: “Durrell is excited to be working on a major restoration project in Britain, bringing six decades of experience in saving species from extinction and rebuilding ecosystems.  In a world where we are seeing major environmental changes and the loss of wildlife, we passionately believe we can address these challenges and make the world a better place. We look forward to restoring the plant and animal communities of Dalnacardoch so that the glens and moors are vibrant with bird song and pulsing with life.”   

The land was bought earlier this year by a family foundation with charitable aims, specifically with the intent to lease it to Durrell for a rewilding project.  

ENDS

This is excellent news for wildlife conservation in Scotland, and especially for this south west corner of the Cairngorms National Park. Part of Dalnacardoch’s boundary is shared with Gaick Estate, managed by Wildland and part of the impressive Cairngorms Connect project, a multi-partner, long-term, landscape-scale rewilding effort.

However, Dalnacardoch, a former grouse-shooting estate, also shares its boundary with a number of other estates (Atholl, Dalnaspidal, North & South Drumochter, and Phones, Etterridge and Cuaick). Some of these estates are still managed (some of them I’d say quite intensively) for driven grouse shooting.

Map adapted from Cairngorms National Park estate map

I’m delighted to see Durrell take on a wildlife conservation project in the UK – this is an organisation whose international conservation work is legendary, particularly on the islands of Mauritius and Madagascar in the Indian Ocean which is where I’ve seen their bold and innovative projects recover threatened species and transform and restore ecosystem functionality, at the same time as providing training for literally hundreds of young conservationists (30 years ago I was one of them!), many of whom have gone on to apply that training to their own successful careers in this field.

I really look forward to seeing what they can achieve at Dalnacardoch.

Moorland Association Director Ben Ramsden resigns & receives inconsequential fine following conviction for illegal burning on his grouse moor

Last Friday I wrote about how Moorland Association Director Ben Ramsden had been convicted at Skipton Magistrates Court for three counts of illegal burning on his grouse moor at Middlesmoor in the Nidderdale Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in April 2023 (see here).

At the time, details of the fine imposed by the court were unavailable. I also wrote how his profile had curiously ‘disappeared’ from the Moorland Association website, even though he was still listed as a Moorland Association Director on Companies House documents.

I can now provide an update on those issues.

Ramsden has ‘resigned’ his position as Director of the Moorland Association, according to updated documents. His resignation was lodged at Companies House on 11 October 2023, nine days before his court hearing, presumably because he knew at that stage that he was going to plead guilty to three charges of criminal activity on his grouse moor and so his continued Directorship of the Moorland Association, alongside a conviction, would come under great scrutiny.

Unsurprisingly, the Moorland Association hasn’t mentioned Ramsden’s conviction or resignation as a Director. Not even PR contortionist Amanda Anderson could put a positive spin on that. Besides, I suspect she’s busy formulating campaigns against the reintroduction of beavers, supporting the burning of vegetation on peat-rich grouse moors, supporting the continuation of hen harrier brood meddling and promoting the use of neonicotinoids in her new position as Vice Chair of this lot.

As for Ramsden’s ‘punishment’ from the court for his three offences of illegal burning on a deep peat moor, there’s an article in today’s Craven Herald & Pioneer (here) which states that Ramsden was ordered to pay a grand total of just £925 in fines and costs (£300, £100 and £200 for each fire, a surcharge of £240 and costs of £85). Gosh, that’ll learn ‘im and what a daunting deterrent for anybody else considering of setting fire to their grouse moors, eh?

The article includes some interesting commentary about how the fires were a ‘genuine mistake’ and how there had been ‘ignorance to the regulations’ by Ramsden.

Ignorance? Really? Is this the same Ben Ramsden who not only was a Director of the Moorland Association but who served on DEFRA’s Project Advisory Group for a multi-year project called, ‘Restoration of blanket bog vegetation for biodiversity, carbon sequestration and water regulation’??!

And is this the same Ben Ramsden whose grouse moor was the subject of a five year £1.5 million peatland restoration project undertaken by the Yorkshire Peat Partnership? A project on which after completion in 2020 Ramsden said: “…Our moors are essentially wall to wall deep peat…”?!! (And by the way, how many traps can you see on those logs – that looks like quite intensive predator control to me):

And is this the same Ben Ramsden whose Moorland Association profile said was ‘instrumental in establishing the Nidderdale Moorland Group‘, the same group that repeatedly states on social media posts:

“We do not burn peat, burn peatlands, burn deep peat or blanket bog. All areas are managed under agreement with Natural England and DEFRA“

and whose work ‘restoring peatland‘ was celebrated ‘under the Moorland Association banner‘ (here)?

It seems incomprehensible to me, given his position and experience, that Ben Ramsden would be ‘ignorant’ of the burning restrictions on deep peat. Of course it’d be impossible to prove what exactly he did and didn’t know but it just doesn’t seem credible that he’d be ‘ignorant’ of the risks of lighting fires on his moorland that he has previously described as “wall to wall deep peat“.

The court must have seen some credibility in this mitigation argument though, given that the maximum fine for an offence under this legislation is £1,000 per fire, and Ramsden received just a fraction of that for each one (£100, £200 and £300 respectively).

Had someone other than the landowner (or working under the landowner’s authority) set fire to this blanket bog they could have faced a custodial sentence for arson (criminal damage by fire). It clearly pays to be a landowner.

It’s more than a little sickening that this landowner’s grouse moor can benefit from multi-year, multi-million pound projects (much of it publicly funded) to restore vitally important peatland during a climate emergency, then the landowner can burn it, claim ‘ignorance’ of the rules, and be fined a teeny tiny fraction of the cost of even bringing the prosecution, let alone any damage he caused.

We so desperately need a dedicated environmental justice court, populated by expert judges and backed up with sentencing powers that actually hold people to account.