Raptor Persecution UK

Two million blog views

Yesterday, our blog passed the two million hits mark – a bit of a milestone for us.

Thank you to everyone who has read, contributed, commented, shared and supported it.

This is an opportune moment to pay tribute to two sets of people in particular:

RSPB Investigations Teams (and in Scotland the SSPCA Special Investigations Team is also playing an increasingly important role). There aren’t that many of them but what they lack in quantity they more than make up for in quality. It is thanks to their skill, tenacity and ingenuity that many of the raptor persecution incidents that we report have come to light.
Raptor Study Group Members. Again, there aren’t that many of them but it’s thanks to their expertise and effort (they all work in a voluntary capacity on their days/evenings off) that we are able to understand the wider impact of individual raptor persecution crimes. Without their hard-earned data, we wouldn’t know that illegal persecution is having population-level effects on several raptor species, notably golden eagle, hen harrier, red kite, goshawk and peregrine.

Here’s a reminder of why we do what we do. This is Fearnan, a young golden eagle who was found dead on a grouse moor in the Angus Glens. He’d been illegally poisoned. He’s one of many, many victims, illegally killed by the game-shooting industry.

Fearnan

Hands off our Hen Harriers

HandOffRed2 Following this morning’s news (see here and here), Henry invites you to save this date:

Saturday 25 June

For a midday picnic and rally on a Yorkshire grouse moor.

Further details available towards the end of this week.

How many hen harriers breeding in England this year?

hh LAURIE CAMPBELL Martin Harper, the RSPB’s Conservation Director, has this morning published his promised mid-season update on the status of breeding hen harriers in England this year.

To be frank, and sorry about this Martin, but it’s the biggest pile of tosh we’ve read in a while.

Back in March, when we asked whether the RSPB was planning a ‘black-out’ on hen harrier news this year, Martin responded by saying there wouldn’t be a news black out and that “transparency is absolutely key“.

Have a read of Martin’s mid-season update (here) and think about that word ‘transparency’.

Martin tells us that this year, there is “only a tiny handful of nesting attempts to date”. Not just a handful, but “a tiny handful”. What does that actually mean? Why didn’t he provide the precise number of breeding attempts (at least of which the RSPB is aware), and also provide detail of whether those attempts had resulted in eggs/chicks?

It’s all quite furtive. Why is that?

We’ve heard, from several sources, that the number of breeding pairs of hen harriers in England so far this year ranges between 0 and 1.

How accurate is that? We don’t know, because the RSPB isn’t being transparent about it. And it seems we won’t know until September when Martin says he’ll next report on how the season has gone. Terrific. So, as we predicted back in March, the grouse-shooting industry gets a PR-disaster-free ride up to the opening of the grouse-shooting season on the Inglorious 12th.

Only they won’t, because we won’t let that happen. Unlike Martin, with his soothing words about a “positive partnership approach” and how “pleased” he was to see a statement from the Moorland Association condemning the use of illegal pole traps on a grouse moor, we’re not buying it.

Does he really think that the Moorland Association was sincere in its condemnation of illegal raptor persecution? Come off it, it was nothing more than a PR sound bite because if they had really meant to condemn illegal raptor persecution they’d have booted that grouse moor owner from within their ranks.

And what about that video of the armed man sitting next to a decoy hen harrier, on a grouse moor in the Peak District National Park? Martin mentions it – he describes it as “a worrying incident”. We would describe it as clear evidence of the blatant disregard the grouse-shooting industry pays to the law.

And what about the news of hen harrier ‘Highlander’, whose satellite tag ‘suddenly and unaccountably ceased transmission’ on 16 April this year? Martin describes this as a “huge cause for concern”. We don’t disagree with him on that but unlike Martin, we’re no longer prepared to give the grouse-shooting industry the benefit of doubt.

If, like us, and like Mark Avery (here), you’ve had enough of this pathetic charade that everything’s going to be ok, there will shortly be an opportunity for you to participate in a more direct action approach. WATCH THIS SPACE!

In the meantime, please join 40,000+ people who have definitely had enough and sign the e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting HERE

Media coverage

BBC news here

Statement from Northern England Raptor Forum here

Deafening silence in response to gas gun use in protected area of Peak District National Park

Remember that gas gun we blogged about at the end of May, positioned on the Broomhead Estate in the Peak District National Park, booming away across the grouse moor and undoubtedly disturbing birds in an area designated as a Special Protection Area (SPA), a Special Area of Conservation (SAC), and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)?

Gas gun 4 Broomhead - Copy

Guess what? It’s still there.

Here are some more recent pictures:

JUNE 2016 BROOMHEAD ESTATE - Copy

JUNE 2016 BROOMHEAD ESTATE2 - Copy

Ironically, the response from the authorities (South Yorkshire Police, Peak District National Park Authority, Natural England) to this suspected wildlife crime has been a deafening silence.

Big decision for Hawk & Owl Trust

Most of you will be aware of the Hawk & Owl Trust’s terrible decision to support the brood meddling part of DEFRA’s doomed Hen Harrier Action Plan.

The Hawk & Owl Trust was on the receiving end of much criticism for that choice (e.g. see here, here, here) and it even resulted in the resignation of their President, Chris Packham (see here). The Hawk & Owl Trust attempted to defend their decision by saying there were “three immoveable provisos and conditions” for taking part. These were:

HOT2

We’ve highlighted one of those “immoveable provisos” in red.

Now, given today’s news that the criminal gamekeeper who was recently filmed setting illegal pole traps on a grouse moor, in the vicinity of a female hen harrier, is employed by a member of the Moorland Association (see here), can we now expect a statement from the Hawk & Owl Trust saying they’ve pulled out of supporting the brood meddling scheme because one of their “immoveable provisos” has been broken?

If not, why not?

Emails to: enquiries@hawkandowl.org

Criminal pole-trapper is gamekeeper on Mossdale Estate

This won’t come as any surprise to anyone, but it has now been confirmed that the man given a police caution for setting illegal pole traps on a grouse moor on the Mossdale Estate in the Yorkshire Dales National Park is……wait for it….a gamekeeper from the Mossdale Estate.

How do we know? Because the Moorland Association has said so.

In a rather late public statement (probably issued after coming under considerable pressure to say something), the Moorland Association says the unnamed 23-year old is a ‘junior employee’ of the Mossdale Estate.

By the way, the name of this individual has not been publicised, and nor can it be (hence the pixelated photo from the RSPB in previous articles about this crime) because he is protected by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (see here for a good explanation). This Act’s basic premise is that after a period of x years post-conviction (depending on the type of crime committed – typically five years for someone convicted of a wildlife crime), the conviction can be ignored and need not be divulged (with one or two exceptions). If somebody does then publish information about the individual’s conviction, they may be subject to libel damages, but only if the primary motive for publishing the information was malicious. What’s amazing about this legislation in this particular case is that if an individual receives a police caution, that caution is considered immediately ‘spent’, which means that the individual cannot be publicly named in relation to his crime, even immediately after his admission of guilt! It gives a whole new meaning to the term police protection.

Anyway, back to that statement from the Moorland Association. Here it is:

Disgust at use of illegally set traps on posts

3rd June 2016

Chairman of the Moorland Association, Robert Benson, has today issued the following statement:

We agree with the RSPB and others expressing disgust about the use of illegally set traps on posts. This behaviour could result in indiscriminate capture of wildlife and prolonged suffering. It was rightly outlawed in 1904 and these is no place for it in 21st Century moorland management. There are perfectly good legal and targeted predator control measures available to protect ground nesting birds at this time of year, not least through the licensing system.

The owner of the estate where this gamekeeper worked is a member of the Moorland Association. He has made it clear that neither he nor his head gamekeeper knew anything of this illegal and totally unacceptable activity by a junior employee. The employee who set the traps has been suspended and, as a result of having accepted a police caution for his action, now carries a criminal record and has lost his right to own firearms.

END

The first paragraph is a commendable condemnation of illegal pole-trapping. The problem is, whether it was said with sincerity or not, many of us don’t believe it’s worth the paper it’s written on. It’s clear from this case alone that whatever the Moorland Association thinks, it has little influence over what actually happens on a grouse moor.

What would be more convincing is if the Moorland Association expelled any of its members on whose grouse moor this illegal practice had been detected. Now THAT would be a more credible display of zero tolerance for illegal raptor persecution, wouldn’t it?

But no. Instead we get a feeble explanation that the grouse moor owner and his head gamekeeper knew nothing about the illegal activity taking place on that moor. And that, it seems, is enough justification for the grouse moor owner to remain a member of the club. Does that indicate a Moorland Association policy of zero tolerance to you? It doesn’t to us.

And what action has the grouse moor owner taken against his criminal employee who has already admitted ‘illegal and totally unacceptable’ behaviour? He’s just suspended him. He hasn’t fired him, he’s JUST SUSPENDED HIM.

That tells you everything you need to know about the grouse-shooting industry.

Please sign the petition to ban driven grouse shooting HERE

We’re interested in finding out whether this criminal gamekeeper is / was a member of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation. Let’s ask them. Emails to: info@nationalgamekeepers.org.uk

Goshawk suspected shot in Peak District National Park

The RSPB has just issued this press statement:

Goshawk nest fails in suspicious circumstances in Peak District

The RSPB is appealing for information after a goshawk nest failed in suspicious circumstances at Dove Stone in the Peak District.

On 10 May, a local raptor worker discovered the freshly abandoned goshawk nest in conifer woodland in the Longendale Valley, which the RSPB co-manages with landowner United Utilities. There were three cold eggs in the nest, one of which was broken. Damaged goshawk body feathers and a spent plastic shotgun cartridge were found in the immediate vicinity.

Both Derbyshire Police and the Peak District Bird of Prey Initiative were informed.

A local birdwatcher observed the female goshawk near to the nest on 8 May so it’s thought that the nest failed sometime between the afternoon of 8 May and the morning of 10 May.

Goshawks have been subjected to a high level of illegal persecution in the northern Peak District where they are now teetering on the brink of extinction. In 2015, there were only three known nests in the Dark Peak, one of which successfully fledged young.

Dave O’Hara, RSPB Site Manager at Dove Stone, said: “Due to illegal persecution goshawks are really struggling in the Dark Peak so we are deeply concerned that this nest has failed in suspicious circumstances on land that we manage. We would urge anyone with information to report it to the Police immediately by calling 101.”

END

GOS NEST pdnp may 2016 - Copy What this press release doesn’t say is that this goshawk site is a historical one (i.e. goshawks have attempted to breed here in the past) although strangely the site has never been successful, with breeding attempts always failing by the incubation stage. Perhaps not so strange when you realise that the site is adjacent to a driven grouse moor.

Once again, the Peak District Bird of Prey Initiative (perhaps a more apt name would be the Peak District Lack of Bird of Prey Initiative) has failed to respond, leaving it up to the RSPB to issue a press statement. That’s very odd, especially when you consider the Lack of Bird of Prey Initiative recently decided to include goshawk on its list of raptor species that would receive improved protection within the Dark Peak area of the National Park.

The RSPB statement hints at some annoyance with both the Peak District Lack of Bird Prey Initiative and Derbyshire Constabulary for failing to report this suspected shooting, but it really is just a subtle hint.

So why no timely public appeal from the Peak District Lack of Bird of Prey Initiative or the police? Is there a lack of leadership? Is there some internal issue? A disagreement on the choice of words? Or just an inability or unwillingness to communicate bad news? Perhaps they’re still shell-shocked from the recent news of the armed man sitting next to a decoy hen harrier on a grouse moor within the National Park – a grouse moor that was supposedly signed up to the aims of the Bird of Prey Initiative?

What is clear is that raptor persecution within the Peak District National Park is out of control and has been for many years (e.g. see here and here). It’s also abundantly clear that the Peak District Bird of Prey Initiative isn’t working and is simply providing a convenient cover for the grouse-shooting industry who use their membership of it as ‘evidence’ of their support for raptor conservation. Sorry, but we can all see straight through it. It’s time for the good guys to step away from this failed Initiative and stop giving the criminals such cover.

Over 39,000 people have now signed the petition to ban driven grouse shooting. That’s over 39,000 people who have made the link between driven grouse shooting and illegal raptor persecution. There will be many more thousands who sign this petition as these raptor persecution crimes are increasingly exposed. Please sign HERE.

Goshawk photo by Steve Garvie

Photo of the failed goshawk nest (via digiscope) sent to us by a Peak District raptor worker

North Yorks Police try to justify police caution for criminal activity on grouse moor

Following today’s earlier blog about the man who was given a police caution after he was filmed setting illegal pole traps on the Mossdale Estate grouse moor within the Yorkshire Dales National Park (see here), North Yorkshire Police has now issued an unbelievable press statement in an attempt to justify their decision to caution instead of prosecute:

NYorksPolice statement

Before we take this statement apart, we want to make it clear that our comments are NOT aimed at the three police wildlife crime officers who attended the crime scene. It is obvious from the RSPB Investigation Team’s blog (here) and from recent accounts of police attendance at other raptor persecution crime scenes in North Yorkshire (e.g. see here) that these on-the-ground police officers are doing their utmost to respond quickly, collect evidence, issue early appeals for information, and work inclusively with the RSPB Investigation Team. We sincerely applaud their efforts and they deserve all credit for their actions.

Our comments are aimed directly at senior officers within North Yorkshire Police, i.e. the one(s) who took the decision to issue a caution rather than consider a prosecution.

So, THAT police statement. What an unbelievably stupid, self-congratulatory piece of work. It really beggars belief that this police force, which, incidentally, has just taken on the role of National Wildlife Crime Lead, views this result as a ‘successful conviction’. What interests us the most about the statement is the following sentence:

“Based on the case at hand, it was decided the most appropriate course of action was to give him an adult caution“.

When the police decide on a course of action, they are supposed to refer to official guidance to help their decision-making. The official guidance document relating to whether a caution is appropriate can be read here. This is a fascinating read.

It explains that a ‘simple caution’ (once known as a formal or police caution) is a formal warning that may be given by the police to persons aged 18 years or over who admit to committing an offence. A simple caution must NOT be given if the decision-maker (i.e. senior police officer) considers that it is in the public interest for the offender to be prosecuted. Er, there’s failure #1 for North Yorks Police.

A simple caution may only be given where specified criteria are met. These criteria are listed in what’s called a Gravity Factor Matrix (see here). This matrix sets out the aggravating and mitigating factors that the decision-maker must consider for various types of offence. If you look at page 39, you’ll find the guidance the police are supposed to follow for a wildlife crime offence. Here are the listed aggravating factors, which, in this particular case, should have been considered by North Yorkshire Police:

The offence relates to a wildlife crime priority. Does this aggravating factor apply to this case? Er, YES! Raptor persecution is a national wildlife crime priority. Failure #2 for North Yorks Police.

The conservation impact of the offence. Does this aggravating factor apply to this case? Er, YES! Hen harrier persecution is responsible for the precarious conservation status of this species in England. Failure #3 for North Yorks Police.

The offence results in or is intended to result in financial gain. Does this aggravating factor apply to this case? Er, YES! Raptor persecution on grouse moors is undertaken to maximise the number of red grouse available for paying clients to kill and the number of red grouse killed impacts on the estimated value of the estate/shoot. Failure #4 for North Yorks Police.

The offence involves cruelty. Does this aggravating factor apply to this case? Er, YES! A pole trap functions by crushing the leg(s) of any bird that lands on it and the bird can then dangle upside down from the post for many hours/days, unable to escape. Failure #5 for North Yorks Police.

The offence was planned or pre-meditated. Does this aggravating factor apply to this case? Er, YES! This offender re-set three traps knowing exactly what could result from his actions. Failure #6 for North Yorks Police.

The mitigating factors for the decision-maker to consider for this wildlife crime offence were:

The offence was committed by mistake or misunderstanding. Does this mitigating factor apply to this case? Er, NO!

The offence would result in little or no conservation impact. Does this mitigating factor apply to this case? Er, NO!

So, this offence starts off with a Gravity Score of 3. You then look at the aggravating and mitigating factors and then decide how to proceed. If you look at the guidelines (page 5), you’ll see that the appropriate police action for an offence with this gravity score is ‘Normally charge but a simple caution may be appropriate if first offence’.

We’d like to know why the senior police officer decided that this case was worthy of a simple caution instead of the ‘normally charge’ route, especially given that all five aggravating factors were met and the mitigating factors were inapplicable.

And we’re not alone in our concern. We sent a tweet to North York Police Acting Assistant Chief Constable Amanda Oliver (she with responsibility as the National Wildlife Crime Lead) asking her if she had sanctioned the above statement from North Yorkshire Police. To her credit, she responded as follows:

AmandaOliverResponse

We look forward to learning the details of her review in due course.

Attempted hen harrier persecution on grouse moor in Yorkshire Dales National Park

An unnamed man has received a police caution for setting three illegal pole traps in the middle of a grouse moor in the Yorkshire Dales National Park.

The three traps were discovered on Friday 6th May 2016 by a member of the public, who also saw a female hen harrier hunting in the vicinity. The RSPB Investigations Team moved swiftly and first made the traps safe and then installed covert cameras that night, to find out who was responsible for the traps. When they retrieved the cameras on Monday 9th May, their video footage revealed an armed man attending the traps and re-setting them (see photo below). North Yorkshire Police responded very quickly and attended the site the following day (Tuesday 10th May) to seize the traps.

Mossdale pole trap May 2016

The full details of these crimes can be read on the RSPB Investigations Team’s excellent blog here and there’s an accompanying video here.

The individual who was filmed setting the traps has received a police caution (which is presumably why he hasn’t been named). Quite why this case didn’t proceed to a prosecution is a matter of deep concern and the RSPB is writing to North Yorkshire Police to establish why the decision was made not to prosecute. We’ll come back to that in a later blog.

The location where these traps were set has been named by the RSPB as Widdale Fell on the Mossdale Estate.

Mossdale (1)

What the RSPB didn’t say was that this grouse-shooting estate is owned by the van Cutsem family. That name might be familiar to some of you. Indeed, if you google ‘van Cutsem hen harrier’ you’ll see a long list of entries relating to the alleged shooting of two hen harriers at the Queen’s Sandringham Estate in 2007. William van Cutsem was interviewed, along with his friend Prince Harry, as they were both out shooting on the estate that evening. They both denied all knowledge of the shot harriers and nobody was ever prosecuted (see here).

The van Cutsem family name is well known in grouse-shooting circles and has many royal connections. The late Hugh van Cutsem was a personal friend of Prince Charles and all four sons have featured regularly in the shooting press, mostly being recognised for their shooting prowess. The youngest van Cutsem son, William, is Prince George’s godfather, and Prince William is godfather to Grace, the daughter of the eldest van Cutsem son, Edward.

The van Cutsem’s Mossdale Estate sits within the Yorkshire Dales National Park (YDNP). This region is no stranger to hen harrier persecution. Hen harriers have not bred successfully in the YDNP since 2007. According to 2007-2014 hen harrier satellite data, published by Natural England in 2014, at least nine young sat tagged hen harriers have ‘disappeared’ within the Park boundary:

Female, tagged N England 26/6/07: last known location YDNP 5/10/07. Status: missing.

Female, tagged N England 16/7/09: last known location YDNP 27/9/09. Status: missing.

Male, tagged Bowland 29/6/09: last known location YDNP 17/8/09. Status: missing.

Female, tagged N England 29/6/10: last known location YDNP 25/11/10. Status: missing.

Female (Bowland Betty), tagged Bowland 22/6/11: last known location YDNP 5/7/12. Status: shot dead.

Female (Kristina), tagged N England 25/6/12: last known location YDNP 9/10/12. Status: missing.

Male (Thomas), tagged N England 4/9/12: last known location YDNP 4/9/12. Status: missing.

Male (Sid), tagged Langholm 21/9/14: last known location YDNP 21/9/14. Status: missing.

Female (Imogen), tagged N England 26/6/14: last known location YDNP 1/9/14. Status: missing.

The YDNP, as with other areas where land-use is dominated by driven grouse moors, is a magnet for young hen harriers, but few of them seem to survive. Why is that? What with gas guns, decoy hen harriers and illegal pole traps, all being reported from driven grouse moors in recent weeks, it’s not hard to take an educated guess. It seems there’s an ‘alternative’ Hen Harrier Action Plan at work.

We’ll be coming back to this latest crime in future blogs but for now, you might want to contact David Butterworth, Chief Executive of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, and ask him why illegal pole traps are being set on grouse moors within the National Park, why hen harriers have failed to nest within the National Park since 2007, why so many young satellite-tagged hen harriers seem to ‘disappear’ within the National Park, and what action the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority intends to take? Emails to: david.butterworth@yorkshiredales.org.uk

Petition to ban driven grouse shooting here

MEDIA COVERAGE

RSPB press release here

RSPB investigations blog here

Mark Avery’s blog here and here

ITV news here

The Moorland Association’s response to this news has been to publish a fluffy article entitled ‘Testimony to dedication of moorland men‘. No mention of raptor persecution at all. Looks like Director Amanda Anderson still suffering from wilful blindness.

Unbelievable statement from North Yorkshire Police here

Interview with senior RSPB Investigations team member Guy Shorrock on BBC Radio York (starts at 1:45:20, available for 30 days here)

BBC news here

Independent here

Daily Express here

The News Hub here

UPDATE: https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/north-yorks-police-try-to-justify-police-caution-for-criminal-activity-on-grouse-moor/

Gas gun in use on grouse moor in Peak District National Park

As regular blog readers will know, we have an interest in the use of propane gas guns on grouse moors in the English and Scottish uplands.

For those who don’t know, propane gas guns are routinely used for scaring birds (e.g. pigeons, geese) from agricultural crops – they are set up to deliver an intermittent booming noise and the audible bangs can apparently reach volumes in excess of 150 decibels. According to the Purdue University website, 150 decibels is the equivalent noise produced by a jet taking off from 25 metres away and can result in eardrum rupture. That’s quite loud!

The grouse-shooting industry has claimed these are used for scaring ravens, but we argue they are more likely to be used (illegally) to disturb hen harrier breeding attempts. We are interested in the deployment of these bird scarers in relation to (a) their proximity to Schedule 1 (and in Scotland, Schedule 1A bird species) and thus any potential disturbance to these specially protected species and (b) their use in designated Special Protection Areas and thus any potential disturbance caused.

We, and others, have previously blogged about specific instances of gas gun use on grouse moors (e.g. see here and here) and we’ve been pressing the statutory nature conservation organisations (Natural England & Scottish Natural Heritage) to issue urgent guidelines on their use, so far without much success (see here, here, here, here and here).

Meanwhile, grouse moor managers are still using these gas guns. The following photographs were taken on Sunday 22 May 2016 in the Peak District National Park:

Gas gun 1 Broomhead - Copy

Gas gun 2 Broomhead - Copy

Gas gun 3 Broomhead - Copy

Gas gun 4 Broomhead - Copy

This gas gun is on the Barnside Moor, which is part of the Broomhead Estate, owned by Ben Rimington Wilson, a spokesman (see here) for the grouse-shooting industry’s lobby group the Moorland Association. The grouse moors of the Broomhead Estate are part of a regional Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Protection Area (SPA), designated as a site of importance for short-eared owl, merlin, and golden plover.

Now, what’s interesting about the placement of this particular gas gun is that it lies a few metres outside of the SPA boundary, although the gas gun is pointing towards the SPA:

SPA OS - Copy

What’s interesting is whether this gas gun was deliberately placed outside of the SPA boundary, to avoid having to ask Natural England for deployment consent? Although we would argue that even though the gas gun isn’t placed directly within the SPA, it is placed directly adjacent to it and the noise from that gas gun will definitely resonate across the SPA boundary line, potentially disturbing ground-nesting species such as short-eared owl, merlin and golden plover, for which the site was designated. (Hen harrier is not on the site’s designation list, presumably because when the site was designated, there weren’t any hen harriers nesting there, even though this is prime hen harrier habitat!).

But even though the gun isn’t directly placed within the SPA, it does sit (just) within the SSSI boundary:

This leads us to believe that the deployment of this gas gun will require consent from Natural England as it falls under the list of ‘operations likely to damage the special interest of the site’, namely, ‘change in game management and hunting practice’.

Has Natural England given consent for the deployment of this gas gun at this site? If so, how has it justified that deployment? If Natural England hasn’t given consent, is the deployment of this gas gun contrary to section 28 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act?

We don’t know the answers to these questions because we’re still waiting for Natural England to publish its policy on gas gun use, even though this guidance document was promised before the start of the 2016 breeding season!

Natural England needs to pull its finger out, pronto, and publish clear guidelines for use. If you’d like to email Alan Law, Natural England’s Chief Strategy & Reform Officer (he’s the guy who last September told us the guidelines would be available by early 2016) and ask him where that guidance document is, here’s his email address: alan.law@naturalengland.org.uk

You may also remember that a couple of weeks ago, SNH gave their opinion of what we should do if we found a gas gun being deployed on a grouse moor (see here). It was a very confused statement, but part of their advice was that intentional or reckless disturbance of a Schedule 1 species (such as hen harrier or merlin) is an offence and any suspected incidents of this through gas gun use should be reported to the police.

In our view, this would be a big waste of time – we can’t see the police having any interest in investigating gas gun use, and even if they did, they probably wouldn’t know where to start. But, just as a test case, why don’t we report this gas gun to South Yorkshire Police as a suspected wildlife crime (potential reckless or intentional disturbance of a Schedule 1 species) and let’s see what they do with it.

Here is the information you need:

Gas gun grid reference: SK233978, Barnside Moor, Peak District National Park

Date observed in use: 22 May 2016

Please report this to Chief Superintendent David Hartley, South Yorkshire Police’s lead on wildlife crime: david.hartley@southyorks.pnn.police.uk

We’d be very interested in any responses you receive!

And if you’re in email-sending mode, you might also want to sent one to Sarah Fowler, Chief Executive of the Peak District National Park Authority and ask her whether there is a policy for the deployment of bird scaring devices on sensitive moorlands within the National Park. Email: sarah.fowler@peakdistrict.gov.uk

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: