Author: RaptorPersecutionUK

Further to last week’s news that there had been a revolt at the Hawk & Owl Trust by former members and volunteers over what they perceived as the ‘poor management’ of the Trust (see here), the protesters, who call themselves ‘Friends of Sculthorpe Moor 2023’, have sent the following statement.

NB: I’ve redacted some of this as I don’t have the background information that might support some of the protesters’ allegations so they may be considered libellous if I publish them here. I think the unredacted text provides sufficient information for blog readers to understand the protesters’ concerns.

THE HAWK AND OWL – NOT TO TRUST

For the last few years the Hawk and Owl Trust has been shadowed in controversy. The most recent events are the pinnacle of a catalogue of actions which we consider clearly prove that this charity is simply unable to do, as it claims – conserve wild birds of prey and their habitats.

This week loyal and frustrated lifetime members and volunteers of the Hawk and Owl Trust peacefully protested at the Trust’s flagship nature reserve, Sculthorpe Moor in Norfolk. Whilst many people have felt uneasy about the Trust for several years, let’s try and remove some of the ambiguity and secrecy, which the Trust has built up, and articulate the exact issues with the Trust and the reasons behind the latest protest.

There are two main issues levelled at the Hawk and Owl Trust. The first is in what we consider to be the unethical treatment, bullying and intimidation of staff and volunteers. The second is that we do not consider the Trust is doing what it should in terms of conservation. In short, it has just become all about the money. We consider it is not raising and spending funds xxxxx, xxxxx and appropriately.

To start with the first issue. In the last 5 years, 5 employees (of just a handful of staff) of the Hawk and Owl Trust have been involuntarily and xxxxx removed from the Trust’s employment, using Members funds as collateral. Similarly, over 100 volunteers have either been “stood down”, discarded or even banned from The Hawk and Owl Trust. With no evidence or clear rationale, despite questions being asked. Why has this happened?

As most small charities will appreciate, volunteers are the backbone of activities and in many cases, such as the Hawk and Owl Trust, without them things simply cannot survive. In this case both Hawk and Owl Trust’s reserves have suffered greatly with this exodus and the Urban Peregrine Project, including its local community outreach projects, has been completely disbanded and shut down.

So why are people such an important part in this sorry conservation situation? Well without the right people the Trust can simply not make the right decisions or deliver its conservation objectives and that is precisely what we consider is happening. A key example of this is the recent removal of the Sculthorpe Moor Chief Warden, who has been at the Moor for over 21 years. This leaves nobody at the Hawk and Owl Trust with the appropriate licenses or training to handle schedule 1 raptors, such as the Peregrine Falcon, the symbol of the Hawk and Owl Trust. How unworkable and crazy is that?

Similarly, there is nobody left with the appropriate scientific experience and knowledge to successfully manage the Moor. Grazing livestock has been needlessly slaughtered, at great cost, because the only warden with stockman knowledge was made redundant. Important scientific studies at this Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), such as amphibian and dragonfly (after 20 consecutive years of crucial data collection)  can no longer be conducted because those who carried out these important activities have been banned, upon receipt of an email from the Chief Operations Director (COD). This is particularly concerning when there is not a single person left at the Hawk and Owl Trust with the appropriate skills to fulfil the justifiably strict conditions of the Natural England Beaver reintroduction license which is currently happening at Sculthorpe.  

Because of what we consider to be the appalling mismanagement of staff and volunteers, there is a breath-taking catalogue of conservation failures, on behalf of the Hawk and Owl Trust, over the last few years. These have been raised with the Board of Trustees and the Hawk and Owl Trust’s COD, Adrian Blumfield. Every member of the Board has been made aware of these issues at one point or another but they appear to have chosen to ignore the problems for reasons which seem unfathomable and questionable.

Here are just a few of the conservation issues that volunteers or staff have experienced and raised with the Hawk and Owl Trust:

• Despite recent increases in many raptor species, the Hawk and Owl Trust cannot identify a single successful raptor nest box which they have established in the last 10 years. How is this conserving wild raptors?
• Threatening to remove an active Schedule 1 nest box unless funds were diverted, from the ecclesiastical nesting site, to the Hawk and Owl Trust.
• Repositioning an active, and perfectly good, Peregrine Falcon nest box to accommodate a webcam, resulting in the new nest not being used and unsuccessful breeding.
• Supplementary feeding of Barn owls for well over the recommended timescales so they become dependent.
• Not adhering to their SSSI responsibility by properly maintaining critical wildflower meadow habitat, which could be seen as an act of eco-vandalism.
• Installing of inappropriate nest boxes and failing to maintain them, making them unfit for purpose and ultimately unsuccessful.
• Inability to have a voice or opinion about Natural England’s decision to remove wild Peregrine chicks from active nest sites, despite being presented with an alternative solution of using wild rehabilitated juveniles.
• Failure to follow clear DEFRA guidelines regarding, handling, reporting and testing raptors at the height of avian influenza, within a high-risk location.
• xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx.
• Poorly managed and underpublicised the beaver reintroduction and now with the removal of the Moor’s Warden, it now has no license holder for the beavers.
• xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx.

The Hawk and Owl Trust has gone on record saying that they “Understand that a small number of people previously connected with the charity in various ways are resistant to the positive progress and management changes that have been made.” Firstly, as a concerned group, their numbers heavily outnumber the board of the Hawk and Owl Trust. There is well over 50 people protesting, including at least a dozen legators, who have cancelled bequests. Given that the average bequest in the UK last year was £40,000, it amounts to a lot of money being lost by the Hawk and Owl Trust.

The protesters are not “resistant to the positive progress and management changes that have been made” and have tried to engage with the Hawk and Owl Trust over that last 5 years. However, they have actually grown tired of waiting for change. Watching little, if any progress in the conservation of wild raptors over the last few years and members money being wasted on what we consider to be unrelated and unnecessary frivolities.  For example, a huge animal shed that can no longer be used to its full potential because of the obvious lack of animals and animal handling skills left at the Trust.

The Trust went on further to say that “Any criticism of the charity is completely unwarranted, misplaced and risks undermining the work being undertaken.” However, everything above is documented and evidenced. The protesters now think that they were probably too tolerant and patient in the past and it is high time that the Chairman and Trustees fulfilled their responsibilities and let everyone know what work is being undertaken in support of their charitable objectives.

If things are allowed to continue as they are at the Hawk and Owl Trust, there is a significant and very real risk that Norfolk and the UK will lose a key SSSI and an extremely important habitat for the exact wildlife that the Trust claims it is trying, but quite clearly in our view, cannot and is failing, to protect.  

ENDS

In the interest of fair reporting, blog readers are reminded of the statement issued by the Charity Commission and reported last week:

“We carefully considered concerns raised with us about the governance of The Hawk and Owl Trust. Based on the information provided, we determined that there is no regulatory role for us at this time.”

Many thanks to everyone who has taken the time to email north-west water company United Utilities (UU) in support of its decision not to renew grouse and pheasant/partridge shooting leases on its land after the current leases expire in 2027 (see here, here and here).

In the face of a subsequent online attack from shooting organisations who are furious about this decision, UU has responded with a full statement to explain why the decision was made. This is the email that UU has been sending to those who are attacking the company:

Hello,

Thank you for contacting us to raise your concerns about the United Utilities’ updated land strategy. Building on decades of successful habitat restoration, we recently reviewed the way we manage our land to ensure we are fully focused on using our catchments to manage water quality, quantity and mitigate flooding, which are of strategic importance to us as we respond to the challenges of climate change.

Addressing these challenges requires a step change in our approach to help ensure a fully resilient ecosystem in which wet moorlands and biodiverse woodlands can improve catchment resilience by slowing the flow of water and improving water quality and retention – this is the primary reason we own this catchment land.

Following that review and to ensure we can focus on those areas, we will not be renewing shooting leases where we own the rights. This follows a decision made some time ago not to issue any such leases on a long-term basis. Stepping away from leasing our shooting rights, as those leases come to their natural expiry date over the next few years, provides an opportunity to work with stakeholders to change the land management approach and support the delivery of this long-term objective for increased catchment resilience.

We remain committed to working with others, to accelerate the restoration and rewetting of our peatlands and the biodiversity of our woodlands. We believe this will help unlock other opportunities to deliver a richer and more diverse approach to habitat management, conserving and improving biodiversity, including protected species, while also developing skills and jobs. We see this as an extension of our catchment management work which has been so successful in other parts of our region.

Our updated land strategy affects 24 licences where we have shooting rights within specific catchments. We are working through this transition with those who are affected by this change as the leases come to their natural end and we remain committed to working with others to help address climate change risks such as wildfires and droughts whilst improving biodiversity. Many current land management techniques will continue and these will form part of new plans, developed and delivered with stakeholders and partners, providing new jobs and economic benefits for those who work in our catchment communities.

© United Utilities Group PLC 2023

Further to the news that north-west water company United Utilities (UU) has decided not to renew any more grouse-shooting and pheasant/partridge-shooting leases on its land once the current leases expire in 2027 (here), the shooting organisations have gone into meltdown, first making veiled threats towards UU in the media (see here) and then whipping up the shooting community into a frenzy with familiar hyperbole that UU’s decision is an ‘insult‘, a ‘disaster‘, a ‘travesty‘, ‘tragic‘ and ‘appalling‘.

You won’t be surprised to learn that I disagree with all of those claims and welcome UU’s vision to restore their land for the benefit of wildlife and wider ecosystem health, and thus people.

I’d much rather see this:

Than this:

It’s still not clear (to me, anyway) just how many shoots will be affected by UU’s decision. BASC says on its website, ‘It’s estimated that more than 30 shoots will be shut down as a result‘ whereas the Countryside Alliance says on its website that UU’s decision ‘…will close seven grouse moors and three low ground shoots‘.

Whatever the number, the shooting organisations are predicting rural Armageddon, as they often do when there’s the slightest whiff of any threat to shooting, and they’re now running a campaign to urge their members to write letters of complaint to UU’s chief executive Louise Beardmore, I guess in the hope of piling on the pressure and persuading UU to reverse its decision.

They’re entitled to express their opinions, of course, so it would be good if counter views to this attack were also heard by UU, to commend their decision and encourage them to hold firm. Who knows, the support may also encourage them to sort out their terrible sewage dumping record.

Emails can be sent directly to Louise Beardmore: Louise.Beardmore@uuplc.co.uk

You might also want to cc your email to the UU press office, who I’m told are taking an interest: externalaffairs@uuplc.co.uk

UPDATE 30th July 2023: United Utilities stands firm & explains its decision not to renew shooting licences (here)

Press release from conservation campaign group Wild Justice (25th July 2023):

A SIGHT FOR SORE SSSIs: Protected areas in England are in a worse state than previously thought

A majority of English Sites of Special Scientific Interest haven’t been assessed by Natural England for over a decade, and are thought to be in a worse condition than currently reported.

1. An up-to-date analysis of Natural England’s data on SSSI condition shows that SSSI condition is worse than the latest Defra published figures. Sites assessed more recently have a lower percentage deemed to be in a good or improving condition, and a higher percentage deemed to be in a bad or worsening condition than those assessed longer ago.
   
2. Two-thirds of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in England haven’t been assessed in more than a decade. Over 80% of sites haven’t been assessed for five years or more.
   
3. A report by Wild Justice predicts that if the backlog of condition assessments were to be rapidly updated, English SSSIs would be shown to be in a worse state than current estimates admit.

Some of England’s most protected areas are likely to be in a worse state than currently reported, according to up-to-date analysis carried out by Wild Justice. The ‘Sight for Sore SSSIs’ report [linked at foot of blog] looked at when Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in England were last assessed, and revealed that the majority haven’t been evaluated in over a decade. Analysis of the most recently assessed sites suggests the overall condition of SSSIs is likely to be worse than Defra’s current figures show.

SSSIs are areas of land designated for their wildlife and biological value. Over 4,000 of the UKs 7,000 SSSIs are found in England. These places often contain rare habitats and species, and are therefore protected from development or certain activities or management. Their condition, or ‘status’ should be regularly assessed by Natural England to determine any changes in land management that might be needed to maintain or improve a site. Each SSSI is made up of between 1 and dozens of Units, each of which has been assessed as to its condition at some point since it was designated. A Unit’s condition can be classified in one of six ways; Favourable, Unfavourable – Recovering, Unfavourable – No Change, Unfavourable – Declining, Part Destroyed and Destroyed.

According to data acquired by Wild Justice, an organisation campaigning on wildlife issues in the UK, current estimates of English SSSI condition are likely to be inaccurate. This is because the time elapsed since the last assessment of any particular site, and the potential for that site to have changed during that time, isn’t taken into account when the figures for SSSI condition are provided by Defra. Wild Justice argues that if a protected meadow hasn’t been monitored for ten years, it’s quite possible that management or environmental factors could have affected the site’s condition during that decade.

The figures analysed by Wild Justice seem to support this idea. In site units last assessed over a decade ago, the proportion of ‘Favourable’, or ‘Unfavourable – Recovering’ sites are higher than site units assessed in the past few years. A similar effect can be seen with ‘Unfavourable – No Change’, and ‘Unfavourable – Declining’ sites; with higher percentages of these statuses in more recently assessed site units. This implies that as site assessments are brought up to date, the proportion of higher quality sites is revealed to be less, and the proportion of lower quality sites is revealed to be higher than it appears at first glance.

Mark Avery, Co-Director of Wild Justice said:

“It seems that most of our English SSSIs have been neglected when it comes to monitoring their condition. The fact that two-thirds of these special places haven’t been looked at in over 10 years by Natural England is troubling and disappointing. Especially as it looks like our most special areas are being damaged, and the public are none-the-wiser. The system has fallen into disrepair and we can have little faith in the published Defra figures on some of our most protected areas.”

Off the back of this analysis, Wild Justice are calling for Defra and Natural England to publish annual updates on the condition of English SSSIs, as well as their date of last assessment. Wild Justice believes a rapid catch-up needs to be prioritised in the next few years, setting a new standard of 80% of English SSSI Units having had their condition assessed in the last 5 years. Natural England should carry out an urgent review of the resources needed to ensure that English SSSIs are in Favourable condition.

ENDS

Wild Justice’s report can be read/downloaded here:

Further to the recent news (here) that water utility company United Utilities has decided not to renew any more grouse-shooting leases on its land in northern England, the Countryside Alliance has responded with predictable fury.

The Telegraph published an appallingly unbalanced pro-grouse shooting article last night (see here) with extensive quotes from Tim Bonner, chief executive of the Countryside Alliance.

In this Telegraph puff piece for the grouse-shooting industry, Bonner is quoted as follows:

“United Utilities seem to be panicking about its recent appalling media coverage over their pollution of our waterways.

“The suggestion that it is banning shooting on its land has all the hallmarks of an ill thought-out distraction technique that will inevitably backfire.

“If it is true they intend not to renew the leases for shooting, it will have irreversible damaging consequences for the conservation and biodiversity of our precious uplands as well as the livelihoods of rural people.

“Additionally, it will create a new problem for United Utilities which should expect to find all its operations significantly more difficult, as a large part of the countryside will no longer want to cooperate with them in any way.

“It would be a stupid move for any landowner and utility provider to pick a fight with the countryside, let alone one which relies so heavily on access on to other people’s land.”

That half-veiled threat that “a large part of the countryside will no longer want to cooperate with them in any way” was put more forcibly in a tweet from the Countryside Alliance’s media account this morning, where the words “will no longer want to cooperate” were changed to, “will no longer cooperate“:

I’m not sure what he means by ‘cooperate‘ as water utility companies have statutory powers of entry on to private land, under the Water Industries Act 1991 – they don’t need a landowner’s ‘cooperation’ and United Utilities have an approved code of practice for such entry (see here) where a landowner’s rights are clearly laid out.

The Telegraph article does contain some useful information – it reports that the longest current grouse-shooting lease on UU-owned land is due to expire in 2027. At least now we have an idea when to expect grouse-shooting to end on UU-owned moorlands.

UPDATE 28th July 2023: Emails of support for United Utilities’ decision not to renew shooting leases (here)

UPDATE 30th July 2023: United Utilities stands firm & explains its decision not to renew shooting licences (here)

If you asked your average member of the public what they thought a duck pond was, I’d wager that most of them would talk about an idyllic small pond on a leafy village green, where a handful of wild ducks live and breed with relatively little stress, sometimes visited by local adult humans with small toddlers who want to see/feed the ducks as part of a peaceful outing.

I used to live in a village with such a pond and the biggest threat to the ducks was being run over on the main lane through the village, but every year the village residents would erect hand-made ‘duck crossing’ signs urging drivers to slow down. On the whole, it worked.

I doubt very much that the average member of the public would describe a duck pond as a massive vegetation-free mud pit, ridiculously over-stocked with semi-tame reared ducks that are fed with sack loads of barley to keep them at the pond so that paying clients can turn up in the shooting season in the autumn and blast them to smithereens for a bit of a laugh.

And yet that’s what’s happening on ‘sporting’ estates in the UK, with anecdotal reports of an increase in released ducks in recent years due to the shortage of pheasants and partridges available to be imported from abroad in the bird flu pandemic.

This grim image has been sent to me by a walker in Scotland. She told me it was one of two such ‘ponds’ on this shooting estate in the Scottish Borders, which also offers partridge and pheasant shooting. These ducks have been released here in the last few weeks, in readiness for the start of the shooting season on 1st September.

It would be fair to say that not every duck-shooting pond looks as bad as this – I’ve seen others that are not so blatantly over-stocked and have been created to provide a really good wildlife-enriched habitat, although there are still issues about the ethics of duck shooting in this way – there are plenty of reports on the internet of ducks circling round and round, trying to land on a pond whilst trying to dodge the guns. Each time they come around they fly higher and higher, resulting in many of them being ‘winged’ and maimed because they’re just out of range for the guns. It’s an appalling carnage.

Here are the same semi-tame ducks seen in the above photograph, in anticipation of being fed.

Although many sporting estates offer ‘mixed bag’ days that comprise pheasant, partridge and duck (typically mallard), it’s both alarming and ironic that the reported increases in duck shooting has been caused by the lack of pheasants/partridge poults due to the prevalence of highly pathogenic avian flu.

You might recall that the RSPB recently repeated its call for a moratorium on the release of gamebirds, and ducks, due to the risk of them spreading highly pathogenic avian flu to wild bird populations (see here). DEFRA ignored the call. Ducks and other water birds are especially susceptible to avian flu and I can’t imagine that over-stocking like that shown in these two photographs is going to minimise the risk.

The shooting of semi-tame ducks for ‘fun’ hasn’t attracted as much attention as pheasant and partridge shooting, probably due to the numbers (and thus environmental impact) involved (i.e. an estimated 60+ million non-native pheasants & partridges released annually in the UK compared with a vaguely estimated 3 million native mallards) but it definitely deserves more scrutiny, especially in this avian-flu era.

UPDATE 2nd September 2023: Minister admits DEFRA is clueless about over-stocked duck ponds for shooting (here)

The water utility company United Utilities, which owns a number of moors across northern England where it leases grouse shooting to ‘sporting tenants’, has quietly announced it will not be renewing grouse shoot leases on its moors once the current leases come to an end, according to Channel 4 journalist Alex Thomson.

Alex posted a series of tweets last night following the news from United Utilities’ AGM held yesterday:

It’s not clear when the current grouse shooting leases will expire but my understanding is that they are relatively short, so I don’t think we’re looking at a commitment that won’t take effect for another 50 odd years or so, it’ll be relatively soon.

It’s interesting that United Utilities hasn’t produced a press release about such a significant change of policy, especially when that change will be welcomed by the hundreds of thousands of people who want to see an end to driven grouse shooting (e.g. see here). I can’t help but be a little bit sceptical until the full details are revealed but for now, it seems an encouraging move and United Utilities should be applauded.

Let’s hope that UU’s commitment to improving water quality also extends to putting an end to its sewage dumping activities – according to the Good Law Project, UU was the ‘worst offender’ for dumping untreated sewage into rivers and coastal waters in 2022, whilst reporting operating profits of £610 million and paid out dividends of £296 million (see here).

UPDATE 24th July 2023: Countryside Alliance furious about United Utilities’ decision to stop grouse shooting leases (here)

UPDATE 28th July 2023: Emails of support for United Utilities’ decision not to renew shooting leases (here)

UPDATE 30th July 2023: United Utilities stands firm & explains its decision not to renew shooting licences (here)