Blog

Many thanks to Jimmi Hill of UK charity Raptor Aid for providing an opportunity to participate in a Q&A interview yesterday evening.

For those who are interested in my actual background in raptor conservation (as opposed to the shooting industry’s claims that I’m an animal rights extremist jumping on the bandwagon), you can watch the archived video on Raptor Aid’s facebook page (see link below). The discussion also includes a fair amount on raptor persecution, on running this blog, and a little bit about Wild Justice.

The video link is here and you don’t need a Facebook account to watch it: https://www.facebook.com/raptoraiduk/videos/854066891772187/

For those of you interested in raptor conservation, check out some of the other interviews that Jimmi has recorded with various experts from around the world through the lockdown period (all archived on the Raptor Aid Facebook page) for some fascinating insights. This evening at 7pm he’ll be interviewing Brian Etheridge from the Scottish Raptor Study Group – definitely not to be missed.

We’re used to hearing from the game-shooting industry that self-regulation is the way forward, instead of the proposition of statutory legislation and regulation, such as shoot licensing, (e.g. see here for the Scottish game-shooting industry’s response to the Werritty Review, where they argue that self-enforced ‘codes of practice’ are the best solution for grouse moor management).

The thing is, self-regulation hasn’t worked for decades, so why should anyone believe it’ll work now?

This Bank Holiday weekend provided yet another example of what appears to be failed self-regulation, and it’s a shocker.

A photograph appeared on social media (see below) showing the back of a 4X4, absolutely rammed full of dead wood pigeons, which presumably have been shot, lawfully, to protect crops from ‘serious damage’. Let’s hope there aren’t any dead Stock doves in this pile – although it’d be virtually impossible to see with so many carcasses heaped on top of one another.

Not only was this photograph posted on social media at the weekend, but it was posted by Shooting UK, which, according to its website, is ‘the umbrella site for Shooting Times, Sporting Gun and Shooting Gazette‘. This wasn’t the handiwork of some random idiot, this was published by a so-called industry leader who didn’t see anything wrong with sharing this grotesque image nor any comprehension of the potential breaches of the industry’s own Code of Good Shooting Practice:

Here is the industry’s self-regulatory Code of Good Shooting Practice: CodeGoodShootingPractice

The Code is overseen by a steering committee comprising representatives of BASC, Countryside Alliance, GWCT, Moorland Association, National Gamekeepers Organisation, Scottish Gamekeepers Association, Scottish Land & Estates, National Game Dealers Association, Game Farmers Association and the CLA.

According to page 4 of this document, ‘This Code is primarily addressed to shooting ‘game’, which includes all of the traditional gamebirds, namely pheasants, partridges and grouse, but many of the principles apply equally to other quarry types – ducks, geese, waders and hares – as well as pest species including; pigeons, crows, rabbits and grey squirrels‘.

The Code has ‘Five Golden Rules’. Golden Rule #3 is as follows:

Respect for quarry is paramount. It is fundamental to mark and retrieve all shot game which is food and it must be treated in accordance with the Guide to Good Game Handling.

So, does cramming a load of shot wood pigeons in to the back of a 4X4 constitute ‘accordance with the Guide to Good Game Handling’? Let’s have a look:

Here is a copy of the Guide to Good Game Handling: Guide-Good-Game-Handling

This guide discusses the basics of good food handling and hygiene such as keeping it clean, protecting it from contamination, the need for rapid cooling and correct storage. It discusses the importance of good air circulation and the need to space birds out, laying them separately and on their backs, and never to leave them in heaps as they’ll quickly deteriorate. It also says that when it’s being transferred to a suitable food storage facility a separate game cart or designated area within a vehicle should be used, again keeping space between the birds to encourage airflow between them.

Oops.

Now, the comment from Shooting UK about breasting implies these birds are destined to be eaten, but what isn’t clear is (a) whether these wood pigeons are destined to be sold or (b) whether the person/people who shot them is going to take them home and shove them in their own freezer for their own consumption, along with all the toxic lead shot in each bird.

Does the Code still apply for private consumption or is it only applicable if the shot birds are going to be sold to someone else? Presumably the Code of Good Shooting Practice applies to ALL scenarios, right? Or is it open to interpretation, a bit like the rules about driving from London to Durham during CV19 lockdown….

Last year the RSPB announced it was undertaking a policy review on gamebird shooting (see here).

This was prompted by ongoing environmental concerns including ‘the ongoing and systematic illegal persecution of birds of prey such as hen harriers on some sporting estates; the ecological impact of high numbers of game birds released into the countryside increasing the density of generalist predators; the mass culling of mountain hares in some parts of our uplands; the use of lead ammunition; the impact of burning peatlands and medicating wild animals for sport shooting’.

The policy review process comprises three elements, including a consultation of RSPB members as well as with others with an interest in gamebird shooting, whether that be for or against (see here).

The consultation period closed in April and the RSPB is currently assessing those responses and intends to publish them (or at least those who gave permission for their response to be published) in due course.

Nine organisations from the game shooting industry have already published their joint response, which was interesting in that they chose to write a letter waffling on about the GWCT’s proposed ‘principles of gamebird management’ instead of responding to the questions posed in the RSPB’s consultation questionnaire. The tired old cliches are all in there and the obligatory accusation that the RSPB threatens future ‘partnership working’ (ahem) if it decides to change its stance on gamebird shooting. The game shooting industry’s letter can be read here: RSPB-consultation-Shooting Industry response-16-04-20

Wild Justice also responded to the consultation and its response has been published on its blog today – see here. As with the game shooting industry response, you’ll probably detect some irritation from Wild Justice with some of the RSPB’s proposed principles, and this irritation builds throughout the WJ response, but for completely different reasons to the irritation shown by the game shooting industry!

Irritations aside, the RSPB’s policy review of game shooting is very welcome and it’ll be fascinating to see where it ends up. The results are due to be announced at the RSPB AGM in October.

The game-shooting industry continues to bang nails in to its own coffin with its latest magnificent display of zero credibility when it comes to tackling the ongoing illegal killing of birds of prey across the UK.

Have a look at these responses from the major game shooting organisations to last week’s news of a reported raptor persecution surge during lockdown. For those who missed the news, see here, or for ease have a look at this brilliant infographic published on Twitter by @RobThomas14, a senior lecturer at Cardiff University:

First up, a letter in the Daily Mail from Amanda ‘pass me the Brasso for my neck’ Anderson of the Moorland Association (which is a carbon copy of the statement published on the MA’s website):

In a similar display of denial, delusion and detraction, here are some others:

They just don’t seem able to comprehend how utterly ridiculous they look. It’s the digital equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and dancing around singing ‘I can’t hear you, la la la’ while increasingly well-informed members of the public stand and stare at them in disbelief. You just need to have a glance on Twitter to see the public’s reactions to these statements of denial and it quickly becomes obvious where public opinion is heading.

And once the details of these most recent crimes become public (i.e. when the police have reached a stage in their investigations when it will be appropriate for such detail to be released), we predict public opinion will be further enraged, causing significant difficulty for those in the industry who continue to shield the criminals.

There was one notable exception amongst the responses from the game-shooting industry to the news of the raptor persecution surge, from an unexpected quarter. Paddy Galbraith, the Editor of Shooting Times has seen the writing on the wall and tweeted this:

No denial, no delusion, no detraction, no attempt to shoot the messenger, just an open acceptance of what everybody already knows is going on, and what looks to be a sincere plea to bring it to a halt. Good for him.

UPDATE 29 May 2020: RSPB provides update on raptor persecution surge during Coronavirus lockdown (here)

The long-awaited review on grouse moor management (commonly known as the Werritty Review, named after the review group Chair, Prof Alan Werritty) and its options and recommendations for grouse moor regulation was finally submitted to the Scottish Government six months ago (18 November 2019) – see here.

The review was made public five months ago to the day (19 December 2019) – see here.

While there have been a couple of preliminary responses to the Werritty Review and its recommendations (e.g. Cab Sec Roseanna Cunningham here and First Minister Nicola Sturgeon here) we’re still waiting for the Scottish Government’s formal response. Understandably, this has been delayed as Ministers focus on dealing with Covid19.

Meanwhile, we’ve been interested in finding out how much the Werritty Review cost the taxpayer. This hasn’t been a straightforward process as ludicrous obstacles were put in our way (e.g. see here) but we do now have an answer, of sorts.

After a series of Freedom of Information requests, we now know that the full cost of the Werritty Review was £86,238.25, and we now know how some, but not all, of those costs were dispersed:

The comments in red in this table have been added by RPUK.

Interestingly, a number of names involved in the Werritty Review have been redacted from this table of costs. Looking through the full list of panel members and special advisors, as announced by the Scottish Government back in November 2017 (see here), through a process of elimination we believe the missing names from this costings table to be:

Professor Ian Newton [ornithologist] (panel member)

Alexander Jameson [moorland manager] (panel member) who worked for Strutt & Parker up to Dec 2018 but then went freelance, according to his LinkedIn profile

Mark Oddy [moorland manager] (panel member)

Dr Adam Smith [GWCT] (special advisor)

We can only speculate on the identities of the redacted names but it’s quite interesting to see the variation in per diem payments, presumably as a result of the different levels of input (time) but also perhaps as an indication of the participants’ perceived value as they negotiated their rates. This may also be the first time that all members of the review group have seen how much the others were paid, or not paid, as the case may be.

Of more interest (to us, at least), is how the the total cost of £86,238.25 compares with other Scottish Government-commissioned reviews. £86K seems an awful lot of money to those of us who work in conservation ecology and are used to being paid much lower rates for what could arguably be conceived as reports of much higher quality (i.e. actually fully-referenced!) but to others in different industries, £86K may seem a pittance, especially considering the number of individuals involved and the extended period (two years) it took to produce this review.

Unfortunately we don’t yet have any figures with which to directly compare but we will submit an FoI to find out how much the Scottish Government paid for the Golden Eagle Satellite Tag Review, lauded by highly-respected international scientists as being ‘exemplary’ and ‘thorough’ (see here). If there are other report authors who’d be willing to share some information here then please use the comments box.

Context aside, £86K is still a lot of money from the public purse and far too much for the Scottish Government to kick the report in to the long grass. Of course, there are other priorities right now but in the not too distant future we expect this review to rise back towards the top of the ‘things we can’t ignore indefinitely’ list.