Blog

Mass shooting of protected gulls on Lancashire grouse moor

RSPB press release: (as read on Mark Avery’s blog)

The RSPB has learned that large numbers of protected birds are being killed on a grouse moor in Lancashire.

A RSPB staff member working in the Bowland area discovered two estate workers shooting nesting lesser black-backed gulls – on a grouse moor managed by the Abbeystead Estate – leaving their chicks to be either killed by dogs or left to starve.

Lesser black-backed gulls have been nesting on the moors of Lancashire for more than 80 years. The recovering colony in Bowland is one of the most important in the UK and is protected under British and European law, having once been in excess of 20,000 pairs. Lesser black-backed gulls are declining across the UK and the RSPB is becoming increasingly worried about their future in the UK.

This species can only be legally culled if they pose a threat to human health, risk spreading disease or are having a negative effect on other species of conservation concern. The RSPB understands Natural England – the government agency for responsible for protecting the countryside – granted consent for the cull. But while the nature conservation organisation has repeatedly asked Natural England for scientific evidence which would justify a cull, none has been forthcoming.

Although the RSPB has yet to see the full details of the consent, it has reason to believe that the landowner may have breached both the letter and the spirit of the agreement, and is calling on Natural England to investigate the matter urgently.

Graham Jones, RSPB Conservation Area Manager for North West England, said: ‘We are devastated that this cull of a protected species has been taking place, apparently without any justification. Although it may occasionally be necessary to cull a small number of large gulls for conservation and health reasons, there is absolutely no evidence to support it in this case. 

We want Natural England to tell us why they think the gulls at Bowland met the legal criteria for a cull and also want them look into whether the terms of an already flawed agreement have been broken. Bowland should be a safe place for this declining species and Natural England should be focussing on helping the colony’s recovery.

We believe the only reason these protected birds are being killed is simply to satisfy the requirements resulting from the ongoing unsustainable approach to grouse moor management”.

ENDS

This isn’t the first time the culling of Lesser black-backed gulls on the Abbeystead Estate has been in the news. Four years ago Leo Hickman of the Guardian wrote an article on how Natural England had been licensing a cull of this species on the Abbeystead Estate for decades, officially “to stop water pollution” although some believed it was partly done to protect grouse shooting interests.

At the time, the Lesser black-backed gull had been identified as a qualifying species (along with hen harrier and merlin) for the Bowland Fells Special Protection Area, but the official documentation hadn’t been updated to include the gull on the citation, which led to confusion about the legality of the cull.

We’ve just looked at the latest version of the Bowland Fells SPA citation (here) and Lesser black-backed gull is now included, supposedly affording it special protection during the breeding season.

So what gives, Natural England? Have you licensed this cull and if so, what is the scientific justification? If you haven’t licensed it, is this latest cull a wildlife crime? Emails to: enquiries@naturalengland.org.uk

Gift of Grouse chef told to refrain from calling red grouse “organic”

Following earlier blogs where we challenged Gift of Grouse chef Andrew Fairlie’s claim that red grouse are “organic” (see here and here), the Foods Standards Officer at Perth & Kinross Council has completed an investigation. Here are the findings:

“You are alleging that Mr Fairlie makes a fraudulent claim about organic status of red grouse being sold at the Mitchelin-starred Andrew Fairlie Restaurant based at Gleneagles Restaurant, Auchterarder.

The provided link to the ‘Gift of Grouse’ web based article contains a quote from Mr Fairlie, which includes the following wording: “In the summer our customers come from all over the world and they want to eat the finest local food. Customers like it because it’s organic, sustainable and its provenance is exact.”

Having checked the restaurant’s available advertising materials, including menus and compliance history I am satisfied that Mr Andrew Fairlie doesn’t make any direct claim that the red grouse or any other food he serves in his restaurant is organic or made from organic ingredients.

I have brought the matter to Mr Fairlie’s attention and received assurance that using ‘organic’ for the purposes of the quoted article was merely reflecting the drive to use natural and locally sourced foods.

I advised Mr Fairlie to refrain from using ‘organic’ as a descriptor of food unless the food complies with the prescribed legal requirements. I intend to monitor the situation in future to ensure that no unauthorised claims are made“.

Glad that’s cleared up then. When Gift of Grouse chef Andrew Fairlie of the Michelin-starred Andrew Fairlie Restaurant at Gleneagles Hotel claims that a food product is organic, when it obviously isn’t, you can be sure he’s not trying to mislead customers, abuse public trust or make a false representation – he’s ‘merely reflecting the drive to use natural and locally sourced foods’.

Genuinely certified organic producers will be thrilled!

Interestingly, the false statement that red grouse are “organic” has not been removed from the Gift of Grouse website. Hardly a surprise – it sits well amongst all the other “risible, make-believe tosh” generated by the grouse-shooting industry’s inept propaganda machine.

Original photo of red grouse by Jim Wood

Trading standards investigating claim red grouse are “organic”

A few days ago we blogged about an extraordinary claim that red grouse are “organic” (see here).

The claim was made by chef Andrew Fairlie, who runs the Michelin-starred Andrew Fairlie Restaurant at Gleneagles Hotel. His claim was widely published in Scottish newspapers and also promoted on the Gift of Grouse website.

We did a quick bit of research and couldn’t find any evidence of any grouse moors in Angus, East Lothian or Deeside being registered / certified as “organic” (these are the geographic areas from where Mr Fairlie’s grouse are sourced).

Indeed, given the associated environmental damage of intensive grouse moor management, its strong link to wildlife crime (especially raptor persecution) and the high level of poisonous lead shot, worming drugs and pesticides that may be inside the bird, we’d argue that red grouse are about as far away from being organic as it’s possible to be.

It is an offence to call a food product “organic” if it hasn’t been inspected and certified by one of the UK’s nine control authorities. We would expect a Michelin-starred chef, in whom the public place great trust, to understand the implications of describing a food product as “organic”.

Many blog readers contacted Andrew Fairlie, the Gift of Grouse, and Ochil Foods (Mr Fairlie’s game supplier) to ask for evidence of the organic certification of the red grouse being served at the Andrew Fairlie Restaurant. As far as we’re aware, no responses have been received.

A report has now been submitted to Trading Standards Scotland, who have confirmed that an investigation has been launched.

UPDATE 7 July 2017: Gift of Grouse chef told to refrain from calling red grouse “organic” (see here)

Buzzard caught in illegally-set trap on Monadhliaths grouse moor

Police Scotland have this afternoon published the following statement:

Investigation into illegal setting of traps, Strathdearn

Police Scotland can confirm that an investigation into the alleged illegal setting of traps to deliberately target birds of prey near Auchintoul, Strathdearn has been launched.

Police were informed of an incident that occurred on 7 June 2017 where a buzzard was found after having been illegally trapped on the south slopes of Beinn Bhreac. The bird was found by a member of the public and was released.

Inspector Mike Middlehurst said: “It is very disappointing to have an incident like this reported, especially when there is a great deal of positive work going on in the Highlands to tackle wildlife crime. Unfortunately, there are some who continue to deliberately target birds of prey; there is nothing accidental in the setup of these traps.

“I am grateful to the member of the public who came across the bird and for their assistance in trying to free it. They were slightly injured in the process of releasing the bird and had the knowledge to photograph it. We are keen to speak to anybody who was walking or mountain biking in this area over the weekend of 3 and 4 June 2017. If anyone saw people or vehicles on these tracks that they thought out of place or acting suspiciously I would encourage them to contact us.

“Anyone with information is asked to contact Police Scotland on 101 quoting reference NN13977/17 or Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111 if you wish to remain anonymous.”

ENDS

Well done to the member of the public who saw the trapped buzzard, photographed it, and reported it to the Police. And well done Police Scotland for getting this news out within a month of it happening. By the looks of the photograph, that’s a baited spring trap, illegally-set out in the open instead of being placed inside an artificial or natural cover as the law demands. Police Scotland are clear:

“Unfortunately there are some who continue to deliberately target birds of prey; there is nothing accidental in the setup of these traps“.

It’s also interesting to note the date this incident occurred – 7th June 2017. This is one week after the Cabinet Secretary’s announcement that she was bringing in new measures to tackle the on-going illegal persecution of raptors on grouse moors. It seems there are some out there who are determined to keep sticking up two fingers to the law, to the Government, and to the will of society. More fool them, because ultimately it is this arrogance and belief of being untouchable that will be the grouse-shooing industry’s downfall. We’re already beginning to see it crumbling in Scotland and cases like this will just increase resolve to demolish it once and for all.

The name of the estate where the trapped buzzard was found has not been publicised. However, Police Scotland say it was found on the south slopes of Beinn Bhreac. Using Andy Wightman’s ever-useful Who Owns Scotland website, the boundaries of two estates meet on the south slopes of Beinn Bhreac: Glen Kyllachy & Farr Estate on the west side, and Tomals & Kyllachy on the east side. Without a grid reference, we’re unable to determine on which estate this trap had been illegally set. Regular blog readers will be familiar with the name of one of these estates.

Here is a map showing Beinn Bhreac and the boundaries of the two estates meeting on its southern slopes (boundary information from Who Owns Scotland website).

Unsurprisingly, this area is driven grouse moor country and just happens to also be where a number of satellite-tagged golden eagles have ‘disappeared’ in recent years. Indeed, this area of the Monadhliaths to the north west of the Cairngorms National Park was identified in the recent Golden Eagle Satellite Tag Review as being one of the main areas where multiple tagged eagles have ‘disappeared’ in a suspicious cluster.

UPDATE 6PM:

We’ve sent a tweet to Conservative MSP Ed Mountain, as this is his constituency, asking him if he’s ready to be the “fiercest critic” yet? (E.g. see here).

We’ve also sent a tweet to Fergus Ewing MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Economy, as this is also his constituency. We’ve asked him if he thinks this ongoing criminality is good for the rural economy?

We’ll post their responses here.

UPDATE 6 July 2017: Edward Mountain MSP responded with this: “Illegally trapping birds of prey is unacceptable. Police Scotland must carry out a full investigation. I will await and act on results”.

Fergus Ewing MSP (Cabinet Secretary) has not responded.

Gift of Grouse chef claims red grouse are “organic”

The Scottish grouse shooting industry’s propaganda machine, The Gift of Grouse, is definitely a gift that just keeps giving. It stumbles from one gaffe to the next with extraordinary frequency.

This week, the Gift of Grouse has joined forces with “Scotland’s leading chefs” to promote the use of red grouse in more restaurants and hotels. This latest campaign has been timed to coincide with this weekend’s Scottish Game Fair, and a press statement has appeared in various papers across the country. Said press statement also appears on the Gift of Grouse website (here).

We were fascinated to read a quote in this press statement from ‘top chef’ Andrew Fairlie of the Michelin-starred Andrew Fairlie Restaurant at Gleneagles. Mr Fairlie says “Customers like it [red grouse] because it’s organic, sustainable and it’s provenance is exact“:

Let’s leave his claim of red grouse being “sustainable” (they’re not) and having “exact provenance” (they don’t) to one side and concentrate on his claim that red grouse are “organic”.

Organic? Really? We thought red grouse could contain:

  • Excessive quantities of toxic poisonous lead (sometimes over 100 times the lead levels that would be legal for other meat – see here)
  • Unknown quantities of the veterinary drug Flubendazole (see here)
  • Unknown quantities of the veterinary drug Levamisole hydrochloride (also used in chemotherapy treatment for humans with colon cancer – see here)
  • Unknown quantities of the pesticide Permethrin (used topically to treat scabies and pubic lice; probably not that great to ingest) – see here
  • Red grouse may also be diseased with Cryptosporidiosis (see here).

It’s hard to see how a product that could contain so much hazardous toxicity could ever be certified as being organic. But, taking Mr Fairlie at his word, we thought we’d do a bit of checking:

We looked at DEFRA’s guidance on organic farming, which says:

  • You must register with an organic control body if you’re going to produce, prepare, store, import or sell organic products;
  • You’re breaking the law if you call a food product ‘organic’ if it hasn’t been inspected and certified by one of the UK’s nine organic control bodies.

Then we looked at the Scottish Organic Producers Association (SOPA) website to find out which businesses are registered and certified as organic producers or processors. The SOPA website pointed us to the IFOAM (Organics International) registered verification facility (here), which allows the public to search a database for registered / certified organic producers in many different countries, including Scotland.

We noticed that Mr Fairlie said his grouse supplier is a company called Ochil Foods in Perthshire. We checked Ochil Foods’ status as an organic producer/processor on the IFOAM database but it wasn’t listed. Hmm.

So then we looked at the Ochil Foods website to see if they mentioned from which estates they sourced their red grouse. No estate names are listed (so much for Andrew Fairlie’s claim of “exact provenance” then) but it does say: “Our grouse come from Deeside, Angus and East Lothian“.

So we thought we’d search the IFOAM database for details of all registered / certified organic producers in East Lothian, Angus and Aberdeenshire to see how many red grouse producers are listed. To do this we searched the IFOAM database by postcode, and chose postcodes that we knew corresponded with areas that includes land managed as a grouse moor.

We found a total of 22 businesses in these areas that were either registered and/or certified as organic producers or processors (East Lothian: 4; Angus: 9; Aberdeenshire: 9). The IFOAM database also allows you to look at the actual details of each certification, which shows the produce each business is certified to sell as organic. Guess what? Of the 22 registered organic businesses we found, NOT A SINGLE ONE WAS LISTED AS PRODUCING RED GROUSE.

You can download our search results here:

Registered organic businesses EastLothian_Angus_Aberdeenshire

So where does that leave us? It leaves us in a position of being unable to verify the organic status of red grouse, which leads to questions about the integrity of Mr Fairlie’s claim, and the integrity of the Gift of Grouse for promoting this claim. If a product is described as being “organic”, the public needs to have confidence that that’s what it is. And let’s just remind ourselves, again, that according to DEFRA, it is an offence to call a product “organic” if it hasn’t been inspected and certified by one of the nine UK control bodies.

Now it may be that the source estate of Mr Fairlie’s red grouse IS registered / certified as being organic, but for some reason it’s not been included on the IFOAM database. Mistakes can happen. So before we suggest submitting a formal complaint to the authorities, we should allow Mr Fairlie, Ochil Foods and the Gift of Grouse an opportunity to either verify this claim or publish a statement to clarify that red grouse are NOT organic.

Here are the questions to ask:

  • Please provide the name and address of the estate(s) from where the red grouse sold at Gleneagles are sourced.
  • Please provide the name, address and code number of the UK control body/authority that certified the estate(s) as organic.
  • Please provide the estate’s date of organic certification and the period of validity of that certificate.

Emails to:

Andrew Fairlie: reservations@andrewfairlie.co.uk

Gift of Grouse: tim.baynes@scottishlandandestates.co.uk

Ochil Foods: jeremy@ochilfoods.co.uk 

UPDATE 6 July 2017: Trading Standards investigate claim red grouse are “organic” (see here)

UPDATE 7 July 2017: Gift of Grouse chef told to refrain from calling red grouse “organic” (see here)

How divisions within SNP affect rural policy decisions, including tackling raptor persecution

A couple of days ago we read the following short conversation on Twitter, which followed the news that Police Scotland are investigating the shooting of a short-eared owl on Leadhills Estate:

Dominic Mitchell (@birdingetc): Another day on a Scottish grouse moor, another protected bird of prey shot. When will the authorities take effective action to stop this?

Scottish Birding (@birdingscotland): In @strathearnrose [Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham] I believe we have someone who will act! These morons are simply highlighting the case against themselves.

There’s no doubt in our minds that Roseanna Cunningham is as angry as the rest of us about the continued illegal persecution of birds of prey on grouse moors. Those of us listening to her speech at the SRSG conference earlier this year all saw, heard and felt that anger.

But will she act? Well, her recent announcement of a new package of measures to fight raptor persecution was a sure sign that she intends to act, and a recent tweet from the First Minister’s Special Environment Advisor (David Miller), also in response to a question about what Scot Gov intends to do following the news of the shot short-eared owl on Leadhills Estate, suggests progress is being made:

“Trust me. Minds are very definitely focused. Further high level discussions held today. Pushing ahead“.

But as we said when Roseanna announced her package of new measures, we should be under no illusion whatsoever about the dark and powerful influences who will be doing their utmost to disrupt and derail those plans.

Some of those influences will come from external individuals and organisations (no prizes for guessing who), but some of them will also come from within the Government itself. Political divisions within a party are nothing new; we see examples of them all the time. Sometimes they’re just minor squabbles but sometimes they can have enormous consequences.

As an excellent introductory primer to internal SNP divisions, Jen Stout has written an article for the New Statesman. It focuses on why the SNP recently voted, controversially, to lift the ban on tail docking, permitting what many see as a ‘barbaric’ procedure, without anaesthetic, on three-day-old puppies. However, the article also has a broader perspective and Jen ends with this:

“The next big showdowns in Holyrood on animal welfare are likely to be just as emotive: the use of electric shock collars on dogs, and the prosecution of wildlife crime (or, how to deal with the fact that poisoned, bludgeoned birds of prey keep turning up on grouse shooting estates). The latter in particular will test, once again, the direction of a party split between appeasing a land management lobby, and meeting the high expectations of its newer members“.

For those of us interested in rural policy decisions in Scotland, and particularly those related to dealing with illegal raptor persecution, it’s well worth taking a moment to consider the political divisions within the SNP because those divisions will undoubtedly make Roseanna Cunningham’s endeavours all the more difficult, and we should all bear that in mind when voicing our criticism. That’s not to say we shouldn’t continue to criticise; on the contrary, the Government should expect to be held to account and public pressure over the last few years has brought things a very long way, but we need to make sure our criticism is aimed at the right target.

Fox-hunting duo convicted on basis of covertly-filmed video evidence

Well this is all very interesting.

Today, after a long-running court case, two members of the Jedforest Hunt in the Scottish Borders have been convicted at Jedburgh Sheriff Court of illegal fox hunting (see BBC news article here and League Scotland article here).

The prosecution case relied heavily upon covertly-filmed video footage, filmed by investigators from the League Against Cruel Sports Scotland. We have previously spoken to one of those investigators who confirmed that he was filming covertly on private land without landowner permission as part of a wider research project on the behaviour of hunts, whether the hunts were involved in alleged criminal activity at the time or not.

The video evidence was accepted as admissible by both the Crown Office and by the court. We’ve even read Sheriff Paterson’s written judgment and there is no mention whatsoever about the admissibility / inadmissibility of the video evidence. It was not deemed to be an issue.

So why the hell was the video evidence in the Cabrach hen harrier shooting deemed to be inadmissible by the Crown Office, before it got anywhere near a court? Does video evidence only become an issue if you have the word ‘gamekeeper’ associated with it?

The circumstances of the collection of video footage in both cases are remarkably similar (no landowner permission, and film work undertaken as part of a wider monitoring project) although there is an important distinction, but we think this distinction should actually have favoured the admissibility of the RSPB’s footage more so than the League Scotland’s footage.

Due to the nature of what they were filming (a fox hunt), the League Scotland investigators would reasonably expect to capture footage of individuals that presumably could be later identified. If you do that, you enter a minefield of legislation about the use of personal data / private information that is subject to the terms of the European Convention on Human Rights, as discussed recently by Dr Phil Glover of Aberdeen University Law School (here).

Whereas the investigators from RSPB Scotland had placed their camera pointing at the nest of a specially-protected hen harrier, miles from any private dwelling. Given the species’ Schedule 1 status, the investigators would not have expected to capture ANYBODY on camera unless they had a Schedule 1 disturbance licence giving permission to visit the nest.

You’d think then, based on the circumstances, that the RSPB’s video evidence would have sailed through but the League Scotland’s video evidence would have come up against more opposition. But what actually happened was the complete opposite!

Today’s judgement is a very good result for League Scotland (and well done to them) but it just throws up more questions about the inconsistency of the Crown Office when deciding whether video evidence is admissible or not.

If anybody with legal training is able to help us understand this seeming disparity, please give it a go.

“Fiercest critic” yet to be fierce or critical

Back in January this year we wrote a blog about Conservative MSP Edward Mountain (Highlands & Islands) who had written a guest article for the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association’s quarterly rag.

In that article, Mr Mountain wrote this:

‘I believe that challenging the ‘spectre’ [of land management reform] is vital, if the very countryside we all value and love is to be maintained. The way to do this is by standing tall and laying out a stall, for all to see the benefits positive management has to offer. The problem is that every time it looks like the right story is being delivered another case of wildlife crime comes to light. If there is any chance of moving forward we must stop these idiots, who believe illegally killing raptors is acceptable.

I therefore would urge all organisations that represent country folk to stand up and let people know all the good work that is being done for conservation. At the same time, they also need to vilify those that break the law.

Over the next 4.5 years I look forward to working with the SGA and I will do all I can to defend the values you and your members believe in. However, I must also say that I will be the fiercest critic of those that jeopardise these values by breaking the law‘.

Since January we’ve waited with anticipation to see this “fiercest critic” in action but we haven’t heard a peep from him on the subject of illegal raptor persecution, not even after the publication of the golden eagle satellite tag review which showed that one of the six significant clusters of suspicious eagle ‘disappearances’ was within his constituency (the grouse moors of the Monadhliaths to the west of the Cairngorms National Park).

So a couple of days ago, when Police Scotland announced an investigation in to the illegal shooting of a short-eared owl on the Leadhills Estate, we thought we’d ask Mr Mountain on Twitter for a ‘fiercely critical’ response. Instead we got this:

“Watching carefully need the evidence“.

When we asked him why 50 recorded wildlife crime offences over a 14 year period wasn’t enough evidence, he said:

“I will react when I have clear and legal proof to do so before would be irresponsible“.

So not so much the “fiercest critic”, but more the meekest observer.

If any of you are attending the Scottish Game Fair this weekend, you can probably catch Mr Mountain for a chat. He’ll definitely be there tomorrow (Friday), presenting the SGA’s Young Gamekeeper of the Year Award.

Parliamentary question re Crown’s decision to drop wildlife crime prosecutions

The issue of the Crown Office’s questionable decisions to drop five wildlife crime prosecutions in recent months is not going away.

Mark Ruskell MSP (Scottish Greens) has now lodged the following Parliamentary Question:

The answer given by the Lord Advocate to the earlier question to which Mark refers is this:

It’s an interesting question from Mark and we look forward to seeing the answer in due course. Will there be an opportunity to ask for a review of the Crown’s decision to drop any or all five of these cases?

25 March 2017 – gamekeeper John Charles Goodenough (Dalreoch Estates), accused of the alleged use of illegal gin traps. Prosecution dropped due to paperwork blunder by Crown Office.

11 April 2017 – landowner Andrew Duncan (Newlands Estate), accused of being allegedly vicariously liable for the actions of his gamekeeper who had earlier been convicted for killing a buzzard by stamping on it and dropping rocks on to it. Prosecution dropped due to ‘not being in the public interest’.

21 April 2017 – gamekeeper Stanley Gordon (Cabrach Estate), accused of the alleged shooting of a hen harrier. Prosecution dropped as video evidence deemed inadmissible.

25 April 2017 – gamekeeper Craig Graham (Brewlands Estate), accused of allegedly setting and re-setting an illegal pole trap. Prosecution dropped as video evidence deemed inadmissible.

21 May 2017 – an unnamed 66 year old gamekeeper (Edradynate Estate), suspected of alleged involvement with the poisoning of three buzzards. Crown Office refused to prosecute, despite a plea to do so by Police Scotland.

Well done, Mark Ruskell. Good to see there are some decent politicians willing to hold the authorities to account.

GWCT back-pedalling on hen harrier cull idea

So, further to our last blog about the GWCT calling for a ‘limited cull’ of hen harriers in response to the news that hen harriers have sunk further in to decline, the GWCT is now saying (on Twitter) that we have deliberately misrepresented their position and that they are NOT calling for a cull of hen harriers.

Let’s just be clear here. If we have misrepresented their views (and we don’t believe we have – see below), then it certainly wasn’t done intentionally. We’re not in that game, unlike the GWCT who are the masters of misrepresentation (e.g. see here for just one of many examples).

The GWCT argues that we “spliced together” two parts of their statement “to misrepresent our position“. It is fair comment to say we spliced together two parts – we did. But not to misrepresent the GWCT’s position – it was because we believed they were specifically referring to hen harriers in both parts of their statement.

If we were deliberately trying to misrepresent the views of the GWCT, why would we have published their entire press statement? We published it for precisely the reason NOT to misrepresent – it’s there for all our blog readers to view and to make up their own minds. Judging by the public reaction both here and on social media, we’re not the only ones who thought the GWCT was advocating a ‘limited cull’ of hen harriers.

So why did we think they WERE advocating a hen harrier cull? Well, it’s mostly down to one paragraph:

Dr Adam Smith said: “We need an adaptive approach whereby agreements are reached between landowners and government, allowing sustainable numbers of both raptors and prey to be achieved. We welcome Defra’s plan to study how to regulate the impacts of harriers on grouse in a non-lethal trial in the interests of both species. This is overseen by Natural England and supported by many organisations including the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, who first suggested licensed control in 1998. Grants, intra-guild effects, limited culls, target predator densities and other mechanisms should be used in this way to serve the long-term interest of raptors as well as game species and other wildlife.

In this paragraph, the GWCT are specifically discussing the management of hen harriers. They talk about DEFRA’s (ridiculous) Hen Harrier Action Plan, and in the same sentence mention that the GWCT  “first suggested licensed control in 1998“. The sentence that immediately follows is where they advocate, amongst other things, “limited culls“. In our opinion, it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that they were still talking about hen harriers, especially as we know that the GWCT has previously advocated a hen harrier cull (see here).

When GWCT said on Twitter that they were NOT advocating a hen harrier cull, we asked them for which raptor species they WERE advocating a cull. They responded by saying they weren’t advocating a cull of any raptor species, but claimed, “The line refers to possible research into effects of raven population on wading birds. The line refers to all wildlife, not just raptors“.

We’ll leave the reader to decide whether this was a case of genuinely mistaken misinterpretation (on our part) of a poorly-articulated  GWCT press statement, or whether this is the GWCT furiously back-pedalling in the face of a public backlash to their long-standing calls for a hen harrier cull.

The rest of our original blog remains unchallenged by GWCT (the bit about there being an over-abundance of red grouse and a lamentable lack of hen harriers) and all this argument about whether they currently want to cull or not is acting as a nice distraction from the REAL issue, which is the continued illegal killing of hen harriers on driven grouse moors.