Blog

This is topical, given how we were just blogging about the need for strong leadership and zero tolerance…

In December we blogged about the results of the 2012 Purdey Awards (see here). These awards are held in high esteem by the game-shooting industry, recognising ‘those who achieve most in game conservation’ (Purdey Awards website here). We questioned whether one of the 2012 award winners was a suitable recipient, as we believed he may have been connected to a gamekeeper who was recently convicted for wildlife offences relating to raptor persecution. [As it turns out our suspicions were correct, but the gamekeeper was apparently sacked once his offences had come to light].

In response to that blog entry, one of our contributors contacted the Purdey Awards to ask them about the eligibility rules for Purdey Award nominees.

Yesterday, that contributor sent us the letter that he had received in reply from Richard Purdey: Purdey Reply

It is well worth a read. It’s impressive on a number of fronts. First, that he bothered to engage at all. Second, that he instigated an internal investigation into the alleged connection between the award winner and the criminal gamekeeper. Third, that he has now decided to strengthen the vetting procedures for potential Purdey Award winners, which will come into force with immediate effect. And fourth, that he kept our contributor fully updated with a comprehensive response to the questions that had been raised.

Well done Richard Purdey. He sounds like a man of integrity and sincerity. Time will tell when the 2013 winners are announced but we hope he is a man of his word. We also hope that others within the industry follow his lead and start to demonstrate that they, too, are willing to discern between the good and the bad. It will take a lot to restore the confidence of conservationists but this is a damn good start.

Also well done to the contributor who took the time to contact the Purdey Awards. An excellent example of how one person CAN make a difference, and in this case, have a significant influence. Nice one.

There has been a lot of media attention in recent weeks over the issue of whether the UK government would provide continued funding for the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU). Journalists, bloggers, campaigners, concerned members of the public…all wrote in support of the unit and such was the strength of feeling that even a petition was started to lobby the government into committing to another round of funding.

We wonder how many of those lobbyists were campaigning on the principle alone, or perhaps just because of the unit’s name, without actually knowing whether the NWCU is effective or whether it’s actually a drain on scarce resources that could be better utilised elsewhere? Many people argued that by dragging their heels on the funding decision, the government was sending a clear message to the wildlife criminals: ‘Wildlife crime isn’t a priority for us so go ahead, fill your boots, we don’t care what you do’. The sentiment of the campaigners is one with which it’s easy to sympathise. Nobody wants to see the government send out that sort of message, whether intentionally or not. But the big question, for us at least, is whether the NWCU is actually delivering and therefore worthy of more funding.

This questions is asked from the standpoint of raptor persecution alone. We are well aware that the NWCU has a much wider remit than just this one issue – for example it is well-documented that NWCU has worked well on international projects aimed at targeting the international wildlife trade. Perhaps that alone is worthy of more funding – the wildlife trade is horrific, incredibly damaging, and deserves our full attention.  However, the NWCU is also tasked with addressing wildlife crime in the UK, and particularly five currently recognised UK-specific priorities: Badger persecution, Bat persecution, Freshwater Pearl Mussels, Poaching, and Raptor Persecution. We do not have the expertise to be able to assess their delivery on four of these priorities, but we can try to evaluate their delivery on raptor persecution.

So, what has the NWCU acheived, in terms of addressing raptor persecution, since the unit was first established in 2006? Well, it’s very hard to tell. If you go to their website (here), you’ll be disappointed to see that it is still not functioning. It has been ‘under construction’ for several years now. The next-best information outlet would be their annual report.  However, the last one published (that we’ve been able to find) relates to 2010. This isn’t helpful if you’re looking for information on their recent activities.

So what is it they do, exactly, in relation to addressing raptor persecution? Two of their staff gave presentations about their work at last year’s wildlife crime conference (here and here).

We also know that they’re quite big on ‘paperwork’ crime, particularly in relation to captive birds of prey, e.g. the bird is unregistered or has been stolen from the wild. That’s good work, and it’s important work, but it isn’t the main issue in terms of addressing raptor persecution.

We know that they also participate in the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group – another one of those ‘partnership working’ initiatives that includes many ‘partners’ that really don’t like raptors. This group has been going for several years and has just, in the last week, produced its first output. (This relates to reporting raptor persecution incidents and we’ll be blogging about that shortly). Not quite what you could call a productive initiative, although that’s hardly the fault of the NWCU.

What else do they do? If you look in the 2010 annual report (here) under the heading of Conservation and Prevention Work, sub-heading ‘raptor persecution priority delivery group’ (p.13), you’ll see they only list one output. This relates to the annual persecution maps produced to highlight raptor persecution hotspots. What they don’t say is that the RSPB have been producing these maps, on their own, for years. Now they’ve just been hijacked by several groups (PAW Scotland included) who seem to want to take credit for the work.

So is that the extent of their acheivements? We look forward to seeing the latest annual reports covering the years 2011 and 2012 to see what else they’ve been up to, and hopefully the list of activities will be a bit longer.

Actually, they have, allegedly, done one other thing. We have it on very good authority that the NWCU has spent valuable time and resources trying to find out who is behind this blog. Why would they do that? Are we wildlife criminals? Do we poison raptors? Do we go hare coursing? Are we badger baiters? Are we pulling the wings off bats? Are we selling ivory? Trading illegal egg collections? No, we don’t do any of these things. So why is the National Wildlife Crime Unit wasting tax-payers money on trying to find out the identity of some perfectly lawful bloggers? More to the point, who put them up to it, and what were they planning to do with the information had they been able to get it? We know that at least one NWCU staff member has what we’d call a ‘very close relationship’ with the game-shooting lobby…

This blog entry is getting a bit depressing, but that wasn’t the intention. We really would like to see the NWCU succeed and have a major impact on raptor persecution crimes in the UK. Have they done that yet? In our opinion, no, although as already mentioned, it is hard to evaluate their effectiveness when there’s so little information being made available about their work.

Today it was announced that the UK government has agreed to continue the NWCU’s funding for another year (see here). We actually welcome that news, not just because it sends a message to the wildlife criminals, but also because it gives the NWCU another 12 months to prove the doubters (including us) wrong. It’s a shame that the funding is only for one year though – as the RSPB say in their press release (here), the NWCU really needs long-term funding so that a strategic approach can be undertaken. Nevertheless, we hope they put the funding they have got to good use.

There’s been quite a reaction to the strong words of condemnation provided by the National Association of Regional Game Councils (NARGC) in response to the recent shooting of a buzzard in Ireland.

For anyone who missed it, here is the story and here is what Des Crofton, Director of NARGC had to say:

“The shooting of birds of prey, who are all protected, can only be condemned in the strongest possible terms. The person who shot this bird is not fit to have a firearm. I would urge the authorities, if the person is identified, that they are prosecuted, have their firearm licence revoked and never allowed have one again. This is inexcusable. If I ever found one of my members was responsible for something like this, he would be out of the association so fast his feet wouldn’t touch the ground”.

Have we seen the same level of leadership from the equivalent groups in Scotland when raptor persecution incidents hit the news? If only. To be fair, sometimes there will be a public statement of condemnation, but more often than not there’s either silence, or an attempt to deflect the blame, usually onto the RSPB who have been consistently accused of stashing raptor carcasses in freezers and then wheeling them out and ‘planting’ them on various estates up and down the country as some sort of elaborate plot to ‘frame’ the estates!

The Scottish (and English for that matter) game-shooting industry would do well to follow the example of Des Crofton. He left no room for misinterpretation. The NARGC is clearly operating a zero tolerance policy and that’s what we should all expect from the Scottish and English counterparts, as a bare minimum.

There will be those within the game-shooting industry who claim that they ARE working against raptor crime. They’ll cite their membership on various ‘partnership working’ initiatives such as PAW Scotland and the Environment Council’s Hen Harrier Dialogue process. That’s all fine and good for what it’s worth (which so far is very little – the persecution continues), but when you examine their activities outwith these groups, it begins to look more and more like they’re just paying lip-service to it all.

For example, if you were a leader within the game-shooting lobby and you had a serious intent to crack down on raptor persecution, would you want your organisation to attend an industry-related event on an estate with a shocking record of raptor persecution? Would you accept raffle prizes from estates with a known track record for persistent illegal raptor persecution? Would you list notoriously bad estates in a Top 20 of ‘great shoots’? Would you run ‘best practice’ training courses on estates with a long history of raptor persecution? Would you give a ‘prestigious’ industry-award to an estate with a history of raptor persecution? Would you accept sponsorship from a company owned by someone who also owns a notoriously bad estate? Would you have the owner of an estate with a 20+ year history of raptor persecution on your governing Board?

No, you wouldn’t. Not if you were serious about eliminating raptor crime. You’d blacklist them as soon as there was the faintest whiff of criminality. You’d distance yourself from them at every opportunity. If you were serious.

These ‘leaders’ need to stop legitimising the criminals. Only by doing so will we believe that their intentions are credible. If the industry itself doesn’t distinguish between the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ guys, why the hell should we?