Blog

Back in July, the Moorland Association announced that it had been removed from the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG), the national police-led ‘partnership’ that’s supposed to tackle illegal raptor persecution (see here for announcement).

The expulsion appeared to have been triggered by a Moorland Association blog, where the grouse moor owners’ lobby group looked to be trying to sabotage the work of the police’s new National Hen Harrier Taskforce, being led by the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) which I wrote about here, although later FoI documents revealed that prior to that blog being published, the NWCU had already warned Moorland Association CEO Andrew Gilruth that they thought he was “wasting time and distracting from the real work” of the Hen Harrier Taskforce (see here).

The Moorland Association then claimed to be “perplexed” and “bemused” by the expulsion in a hilariously distorted rebuttal blog.

Up until now, we hadn’t seen a copy of the expulsion letter written to Andrew Gilruth by the Head of the NWCU so we only had the Moorland Association’s typically contorted version of events.

After a further couple of rounds of FoI requests, the expulsion letter has finally been released. The reasons for the expulsion are laid out very clearly and expose the Moorland Association’s claims of being “perplexed” and “bemused” as being what I see as yet another example of disingenuous spin – a skill for which I consider Andrew Gilruth has somewhat of a reputation from his days at GWCT.

Here’s the expulsion letter/email:

The expulsion letter refers to alleged breaches of conduct against the terms of reference of the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG), the so-called ‘partnership’ in which Andrew Gilruth represented the Moorland Association, having taken over the role after Amanda Anderson left the Moorland Association at the end of 2023.

To fully understand the NWCU’s rationale for writing the expulsion letter, you need to see those RPPDG terms of reference. Here they are:

It seems that the NWCU’s justification for concluding that Gilruth had “brought the credibility of the RPPDG into disrepute” was well-evidenced and entirely reasonable.

There’s something else of interest in those terms of reference:

• If an individual is removed, the organisation they represent should seek to identify a suitable replacement. If no replacement is found, then the organisation could be removed from participating,

and

• Organisations that have been removed can reapply if a suitable candidate is
  identified.

What isn’t clear at the moment is whether it’s the Moorland Association that has been expelled from the RPPDG or whether it’s just the CEO, Andrew Gilruth.

I don’t know whether the Moorland Association has identified another representative to replace Gilruth but I understand that a formal complaint has been made (predictable or what?!) about the expulsion, no doubt “wasting [more] time and distracting from the real work” of the Hen Harrier Taskforce and the RPPDG.

Back in September, an article appeared on the Birdguides website announcing the Hawk & Owl Trust’s withdrawal from the hen harrier brood meddling sham (see here), although the details were vague and I couldn’t find a statement on the Hawk & Owl Trust’s own website.

For new blog readers, hen harrier brood meddling was a 7-year conservation sham (2018-2024) sanctioned by DEFRA as part of its ludicrous ‘Hen Harrier Action Plan‘ and carried out by Natural England, in cahoots with the very industry responsible for the species’ catastrophic decline in England. In general terms, the plan involved the removal of hen harrier chicks from grouse moors, they were reared in captivity, then released back into the uplands just in time for the start of the grouse-shooting season to be illegally killed. It was plainly bonkers. For more background see here and here.

Two days ago the Hawk & Owl Trust published the following statement on its website (reproduced here as things have a habit of ‘disappearing’ from that site):

It’s a weird statement, first trying to justify the Hawk & Owl Trust’s involvement in this conservation sham by suggesting it took advice from three leading academics, forgetting to mention that one of those leading academics had been proposing a brood meddling trial for years (so he was hardly independent) and his university department was probably set to benefit financially from his involvement by receiving public money in the form of associated research grants. Oh, and also forgetting to mention that a Director of the Hawk & Owl Trust was also at the centre of the brood meddling sham and her organisation was also set to benefit financially by being paid for undertaking the brood meddling. Conflict of interest, much?

The statement then goes on to state that the Hawk & Owl Trust’s involvement came with conditions – including “a promise to end support if any illegal harm occurred“. This is a promise that the Hawk & Owl Trust broke over and over again, despite having many opportunities to honour it (e.g. here), including the killing of a hen harrier (Rowan) whose satellite tag the Hawk & Owl Trust had funded (see here, here, here, here, here and here).

The statement then attempts to minimise the Hawk & Owl Trust’s role in the sham by saying: “HAOT hasn’t directly carried out the initiative but has played a supportive role, offering insights and backing evidence-based solutions to balance wildlife conservation with human interests“.

Er, the Hawk & Owl Trust was directly involved in the brood meddling sham – its Chair, Philip Merricks, served on the Hen Harrier Brood Meddling Project Board, a position that brought with it all the associated responsibilities for the brood meddling sham, as detailed in this Natural England document:

It looks like the Hawk & Owl Trust is trying to re-write history here, but there’s no getting away from it – it was in up to its neck with the brood meddling sham right from the start, and it stayed there right through to the bitter end.

The final sentence in the Hawk & Owl Trust’s statement is just bizarre. Having spent the rest of the statement trying to play down its role and acknowledging that illegal persecution of hen harriers continues to be an issue, it says this:

“Future success depends on licences, funding, and cooperation between conservationists, land managers, and stakeholders, building on the foundation laid by the initiative“.

What licensing is that, then? The licences that the Moorland Association is so desperately keen for that would allow the brood meddling of hen harriers to continue as a routine part of grouse moor management, rather than just as part of a seven-year trial?

Or is the Hawk & Owl Trust suggesting that the licensing of grouse shooting is the way forward, where grouse shooting estates would have their licences revoked if raptor persecution crimes continued on that land?

It’s not clear to me whether the Hawk & Owl Trust is endorsing brood meddling as a long term solution or not. But who knows? And frankly, who cares? The Hawk & Owl Trust trashed its reputation and credibility amongst raptor conservationists by getting in to bed with the grouse shooting industry seven years ago. It could have got out of bed at any time but instead it chose to get further under the duvet, pulled a mask over its eyes and stuck in some earplugs. I don’t value its opinion any more.

You may remember back in July when the Moorland Association published an incendiary blog accusing the police-led Hen Harrier Taskforce of ‘by-passing regulation‘ on surveillance after the police asked grouse moor owners to sign a letter giving permission for the police to enter land at any time and use equipment for the prevention and detection of crime, including the installation of cameras, proximity alarms and other equipment on and around hen harrier nest and roost sites (see here).

It was that blog that led to the Moorland Association’s CEO, Andrew Gilruth, being booted off the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (here) – I’ll write more on that shortly.

At the time we only had the Moorland Association’s warped view of the police letters given to grouse moor owners in known hen harrier persecution hotspots, because the letters hadn’t been made public.

It’s taken a while but those police letters have now been released after several rounds of FoI requests to the National Police Chiefs’ Council.

Here’s a template of the first letter, given to grouse moor owners at the end of the first police visit. It’s pretty self-explanatory:

The grouse moor owners visited by the police in those hotspot areas were also handed an information sheet outlining the relevant legislation that officers in the Hen Harrier Taskforce could apply when investigating the illegal killing or sudden ‘disappearance’ of satellite-tagged hen harriers:

And here’s a template copy of the letter the grouse moor owners were invited to sign at the end of the visit, giving permission to the police to enter the land and use equipment for the purposes of crime prevention and detection. This is the letter the Moorland Association really objected to (although I daresay they were also pretty unhappy about everything else as well – they haven’t previously been held to account at this level and their sense of entitlement would have been severely damaged):

If I was a grouse moor owner, who professed to love hen harriers and abhor wildlife crime, and who claimed had no idea who was killing hen harriers on my land and argued that it must be armed trespassers because none of my upstanding and law-abiding staff would ever commit such atrocities, I’d be pretty pleased with this police activity and determination to catch the criminals.

Oddly, the Moorland Association didn’t agree!

Draw your own conclusions.