Category: News

Last month satirical magazine Private Eye published a full-page advert post by Wild Justice which highlighted the absurd release of 50 million non-native pheasants into the UK countryside every year (see here).

It was one of three adverts that Wild Justice had placed (and paid for) in Private Eye, with the second one due for publication in the following edition.

However, at short notice and without explanation, Private Eye decided to pull the remaining two adverts and repaid the publication fees to Wild Justice. That decision sparked a lot of online commentary and caused something of a Streisand Effect (here).

The following edition of Private Eye in early April contained three letters from readers, including one from BASC’s deputy director of communications and public affairs, that focused on slagging off Wild Justice and/or its Directors but, tellingly, didn’t/couldn’t address the absurd reality of releasing 50 million non-native pheasants into the countryside. It’s almost as though their letters were knee-jerk responses to the acute embarrassment of having this truth told (see here). It was disappointing that Private Eye chose to publish them without providing any alternate views.

However, this week, the current edition of Private Eye features more letters about Wild Justice’s advert, this time from WJ supporters:

There’s also an explanation, of sorts, from the Private Eye editor, about why the other two Wild Justice adverts had been pulled.

He claims, “…The decision was taken purely because we felt the advertisement blurred the line between advertising and editorial. And we did not want to continue with this…“.

Hmm. This might be more believable if Private Eye had made this decision prior to accepting the first advert for publication, rather than in the days following publication when some of the pro-gamebird shooting organisations were getting themselves all hot, bothered and indignant.

Ah well, at least the subject of mass pheasant releases was prominent in three editions of Private Eye, all for the price of one!

The following article written by Tim Smedley was published in Prospect magazine yesterday, which is available to read free online (here) and has been reproduced below:

“To keep this moor viable we have to raise 6,000 grouse a season, which we do by killing everything else that moves,” says Viscount Deveroux, the alter-ego of comedian Henry Morris.

Walking a moor, dressed in tweed and with 12-gauge shotgun in hand, he continues: “Do you know there are people who say that driven grouse shooting is a screamingly elitist anachronism whose main proponents own the majority of our countryside yet have absolutely no interest in our shared natural history? And to those people I would simply say this: why don’t you bugger off and inherit your own 10,000-hectare estate?”

The video was released to coincide with a new consultation [Ed: RPUK blog here] by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) on grouse moor management, which closes on 25th May. In particular, the practice of heather burning in England is under scrutiny—because this very British elitist anachronism, to borrow a phrase, has global consequences.

According to Defra, the UK has 13 per cent of the world’s blanket bog, but 80 per cent of its peatland is now degraded. Over the past 200 years, since driven grouse shooting became a gentleman’s pursuit and was popularised by Queen Victoria and Albert, the upland peatlands of England and Scotland have been drained and annually burnt. Grouse prefer to feed on young heather which is more nutritious, and which grows back after each fire.

Peat bogs, however, shouldn’t be dry or dominated by a single shrub. They are England’s largest carbon store, covering about 11 per cent of the country and holding an estimated 584m tonnes of carbon. To put that in perspective, if all that carbon were released it would be more than five times England’s total annual emissions. Advocates for driven grouse hunting claim that their management techniques actively protect that carbon store; opponents such as the conservationist and Springwatch host Chris Packham say such arguments are just hot, smoke-filled air. The Defra consultation is the latest attempt to resolve the argument.

The last such attempt came in a set of 2021 regulations, which prohibited burning on peat more than 40cm deep within Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) in England. It takes around 10 years for each centimetre of peat to form, meaning such depths amount to 400 years’ worth of carbon capture and storage. Worth protecting during a climate crisis, you might think. The 40cm rule was seen as a step forward, but there was scepticism over whether moorland managers would abide by it—and according to the RSPB, they didn’t, with more than 200 illegal burns reported via their Survey123 app suspected of being illegal.

The latest Defra consultation is on its proposal to expand the protection to peat of 30cm depth, and beyond SSSI boundaries. This would mean covering a further 146,000 hectares of habitat—taking the total to 368,000 hectares, equivalent to the size of Greater London, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands combined. “That’s great news for peatland, peatland processes, nature, climate and people,” Patrick Thompson, uplands lead at RSPB, enthuses.

Not everybody is as happy. The grouse shooting community is “up in arms and readying to fight the proposals”, says Thompson, who was raised in the uplands and says the issue “runs through my veins”. Adrian Blackmore, the Countryside Alliance’s director of shooting, claims that, “The possibility of wildfires has grown due to climate change, yet the RSPB is wanting to stop an essential management practice that can help both prevent and reduce their devastating impact.” The British Association for Shooting and Conservation argues that controlled burning in the uplands is “an essential tool” for “improving habitat”. Rather than burn less, they say, we should learn from the United States and Spain and do more controlled burning.

But, counters Thompson, “A healthy bog is already resilient to fire.” Peatlands should be wet even at the surface, and should not just have woody heather growing on them, but also mosses. “It’s only ones that have been drained, dried and annually burned—for the management of driven grouse hunting—that are a wildfire risk.”

Core samples taken of peat bogs show a dominance of heather only emerging in the past 100 years, after driven grouse hunting had become fashionable. A dominance of dry heather becomes a wildfire risk, and so it is burned off to reduce the wildfire risk—it is a circular argument and an endless task.

Each side accuses the other of lacking evidence to back up their position. However, the latest Defra consultation comes with a handy new 322-page Evidence Review by Natural England. It finds that “a large proportion (76-80 per cent) of aboveground carbon stock [is] lost via combustion, followed by gradual re-accumulation over several decades”. As for controlled burning in the US, Spain and elsewhere, there is “limited evidence” that this transfers to “the UK peatland context”. Meanwhile, the 2021 40cm rule didn’t work as hoped, with evidence that SSSI sites and “areas of deep peat have been burned at a similar frequency as other areas”.

One measure the Defra consultation doesn’t include, however, is a total ban on the managed burning of heather; something that Packham, the campaign group Wild Justice and the Raptor Persecution UK website are calling for. The parliament.uk petition to “Ban driven grouse shooting” recently passed the 100,000 signatories mark needed to be considered for a parliamentary debate. It isn’t official RSPB policy, but “if people are not prepared to adhere to the regulations, then the next step is complete legislative control”, says Thompson. “And then there’s no grey areas. It says you can’t do that anymore.”

Grouse moors have been found littered with veterinary medication to boost grouse numbers; their predators or competitors—chiefly raptors and hares—have been indiscriminatingly snared or shot. It is a sport, after all, and these are sports fields which require upkeep. Only, their playing—or rather killing—fields cover half of England’s globally important peatlands. Perhaps it is time to debate in parliament whether this is a recreation activity we still deem necessary and acceptable during a climate crisis.

What of the rural economy? Grouse shooting is believed to contribute £23m a year to small local businesses across Scotland alone—but that figure seems a massive underachievement for what UK Nature Minister Mary Creagh describes as “this country’s Amazon Rainforest… capable of storing as much carbon as all the forests in the UK, France and Germany combined”.

The government has pledged up to £400m for tree planting and peatland restoration as part of its Nature for Climate Fund. Rural jobs would not only remain but grow, in rewetting and restoring peat bogs, fire prevention, even eco-tourism. A survey from the Rewilding Network showed that, in Scotland, full-time equivalent jobs across 13 major rewilding projects (including the Langholm Initiative, which saw the largest ever community buyout of a former grouse estate) rose from just 24 before rewilding to 123, an increase of more than 400 per cent. In England and Wales, jobs across 50 sites increased from 162 to 312 (a rise of 93 per cent). A removal of grouse hunting could trigger a rural jobs boom. 

This isn’t a war on the countryside. It’s the rejuvenation of it.

ENDS

Tim Smedley is an environmental writer and author of books including The Last Drop: Solving the World’s Water Crisis (Picador). He is editor of the New Climate, and writes about climate change and the environment for Prospect.

This morning, Wild Justice’s petition calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting passed 100,000 signatures, which means the Westminster Government will now consider it for a debate in Westminster Hall.

There are loads of reasons why driven grouse shooting should be banned, but one of the main ones is the ongoing illegal persecution of birds of prey that is directly linked to this filthy so-called ‘sport’.

Raptors have been legally protected in the UK, at least on paper, since 1954, and yet 71 years later, criminal gamekeepers continue to shoot, trap, poison, stamp on, pull the heads off, pull the wings off, pull the legs off species such as golden eagles, red kites, hen harriers, white-tailed eagles, buzzards, peregrines, short-eared owls, goshawks etc because they’re perceived as a threat to the hundreds of thousands of red grouse that their paying clients want to shoot for a bit of a laugh. Wild Justice chose a few case studies to highlight these crimes as part of the campaign and these were well-received on social media. For those who are not on social media you can watch the eight short videos on YouTube here.

Many, many thanks to all this blog’s readers who supported the campaign, by not only signing the petition, but also by sharing it with others.

The petition remains open until 22 May 2025.

We await a decision on if/when a debate will happen.

Press release from National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU)

The national enforcement campaign to protect our nesting wild birds is underway for 2025.

The taking of wild bird eggs is a serious crime which threatens bird populations across the UK and internationally.  However, this activity remains an illicit hobby for some determined individuals. Whole clutches of eggs can be taken from some of the UK’s rarest birds and stored in secret collections.

In 2024, Operation PULKA dismantled a transnational egg trading network and highlighted the harm caused by this illegal activity.  In the region of 20,000 eggs were seized in coordinated warrants from nominals throughout the UK.  High value collections were also seized in Australia and Norway. 

Police forces and partner agencies will be working hard this nesting season to protect wild birds from criminals.  Information from the public is a vital part of identifying suspicious activity and catching criminals.  

Detective Inspector Mark Harrison from the UK NWCU said: 

“At this time of year one of my favourite things to do, is stand outside in the morning with a brew and listen to the birds singing as the breeding season gets underway. 

“But for some people this is when they are plotting, planning, visiting areas and checking for nests, getting their cameras, drones and climbing equipment ready. They may have to prepare a hide in their vehicle or check incubators are working correctly. For them this is a busy time of year.  Their interest in birds is far removed from mine.

“At the end of 2024 my team led Operation Pulka and worked with police forces across the UK to execute warrants at numerous addresses during which thousands of bird’s eggs were seized. This highlighted that egg collecting is still a threat to our wildlife.

“Add to this the threats to birds at this time of year from criminals wanting to take wild birds and launder them into the pet and falconry trades, criminals who want to kill certain birds due to some conflict with their hobby or business. Even overly keen bird photographers can disturb nesting birds and commit offences.

“Operation EASTER is one of the NWCUs longest standing operations for the protection of wild birds at this crucial time of year. We will help to co-ordinate the policing response, ensuring dedicated Police Wildlife Crime Officers receive up to date intelligence, operational support and access to specialist investigators from the NWCU. With the help of our partners and the public we can make a difference.

“We need the public and people who spend time out and about in our countryside to be our eyes and ears. To be aware of this criminality and to take the time to report anything suspicious or any information about this criminal activity to the police”.

If you have any information on egg and chick thieves, or those who disturb rare nesting birds without a licence, you should contact your local police by dialing 101 – ask to speak to a wildlife crime officer if possible. Get a description/photo and vehicle registration if safe to do so. Nesting will be in full swing in April so please contact the police if you see anyone acting suspiciously around nesting birds.

Information can also be passed in confidence to Crimestoppers via 0800 555 111.

ENDS

A couple of weeks ago I published a press statement from Scottish charity Trees for Life about NatureScot’s ‘mystifying lack of backbone’ in relation to a delayed licensing decision on the release of beavers in Glen Affric.

I also mentioned concerns about NatureScot’s recent decisions and behaviour in recent months relating to grouse moor licensing and the monitoring of Schedule 1 raptor species.

Criticism of NatureScot continues, this time with an opinion piece by farmer and conservationist Tom Bowser from the excellent Argaty, a rewilding estate in Doune, Perthshire, which was published in The National yesterday.

It’s reproduced below.

SOMETIMES I wonder what sort of democracy Scotland really is.

We have a government policy designed to grow our small beaver population by translocating these biodiversity-boosting animals to new parts of the country. Repeated surveys show that most Scots wish this to happen. We have the world’s most thorough official guidance, leading applicants through how to attempt such wildlife relocations.

Yet when Forestry and Land Scotland and Trees for Life followed this guidance, conducting a gold-standard two-year consultation on proposals to relocate beavers to Glen Affric, the national nature agency, NatureScot, stalled on granting a licence, citing concern among the local community.

Yet two-thirds of the Glen Affric community supported the proposals, and NatureScot itself had previously called the consultations “exemplary”. What is going on?

Since submitting their plans, the applicants have already been made to wait three long months to hear from NatureScot. Now they face a whole summer in the wilderness as the agency demands further consultation. But with community support already demonstrated after two years of engagement, what else can there possibly be to consult on?

NatureScot’s decision is stranger still given that Strathglass, where the proposal’s opponents reside, already has an established beaver population. If this application is too controversial to proceed, what hope have we of assisting the spread of beavers and allowing them to help us fight biodiversity loss and climate breakdown?

Something is very wrong at the heart of NatureScot. This is but the latest in a string of examples where it has acted against the interests of wildlife and communities.

Reaction to its controversial Glen Affric indecision has been brutal. The BBC, Herald and Scotsman wrote stories of “beaver betrayal”. Wild Justice’s Ruth Tingay detailed NatureScot’s “glaring disregard” for conservationists and “pandering” to landowners.

Springwatch presenter Iolo Williams summed the mood up: “NatureScot = not fit for purpose”.

They are right to be angry. Scotland is one of the world’s most nature-depleted countries, ranking 212th of 240 surveyed for intactness of biodiversity. Where is the leadership from those charged with restoring nature?

Let’s return to beavers. Their deadwood-filled wetlands are scientifically proven to boost biodiversity. Their dams store water in times of deluge and drought. The environmental crisis is the greatest threat humankind faces. Scotland’s nature agency ought to be encouraging the spread of beavers. Right?

Unfortunately, the opposite seems true. Every beaver translocation applicant has faced bureaucratic burdens and legislative inconsistency. I know this because I’ve been through it.

Despite having beavers living in the wild just five miles away, it took me many months to obtain a licence to translocate other families to my farm, Argaty. Time and time again I was told that our proposal to move these much-needed animals from areas where they were destined to be shot was “novel and contentious”. At that time, NatureScot was dispensing licences in less than 24 hours to farmers wishing to kill beavers.

As if stalling other applicants wasn’t bad enough, NatureScot refuses to even consider relocating beavers to any of its own, highly suitable National Nature Reserves. That it won’t jump its own bureaucratic hurdles tells you all you need to know about NatureScot and its nightmarish processes. This is not a nature agency Scots can be proud of; it is one we should be embarrassed by.

Why the lack of interest in helping Scotland’s beavers?

Part of the answer lies at the political level. By changing Inheritance Tax rules, the UK Government has alienated the farming community. Seeing the opportunity to win rural votes ahead of an election year, John Swinney seems hell-bent on throwing the farmers every bone he can. Even if that means throwing biodiversity under the bus.

We’ve seen a refusal to countenance lynx reintroduction, a commitment to maintain basic subsidy payments to farmers (paying them per farmable acre owned, rather than properly rewarding environmentally sensitive food production). The list goes on.

Is the stalling of beaver translocations another SNP gift to National Farmers’ Union lobbyists?

Much of the blame surely lies with Holyrood. NatureScot lives in fear of its SNP paymasters, who have cut the agency’s funding by 40% in the last decade. It’s a brave civil servant who defies the politicians, angers the farmers and brings further cuts.

But NatureScot is not exempt from criticism. For years they handed out beaver cull licences as though they were sweeties. The annual slaughter of one in 10 of these animals only came to an end when Trees for Life took NatureScot to judicial review and shamed it into change.

NatureScot’s cowardice over the Glen Affric beaver proposal may have triggered conservationists’ anger, but this storm has been brewing for years. NatureScot is riven with problems. Grouse shooting industry lobbyists have infiltrated its boardroom; traditional “kill everything” attitudes dominate its directorship.

There are good people within the agency, but they are too few and the enemies within are too many. As an organisation, it does not know whether it exists to stand up for nature or to simply serve the whims of its masters.

In 2021, when Trees for Life had proved the illegality of NatureScot’s beaver cull policy, celebrated Scottish writer Jim Crumley called for a “new nature-first agency”. Perhaps it’s time to make the idea a reality.

As climate breakdown and biodiversity loss ravage Scotland, we need an agency properly funded by, but independent from, government. One that is led by evidence and is willing to speak truth to power.

We need an agency willing to champion co-existence with wildlife, brave enough to overcome resistance to vital change, humane enough to support everyone through that difficult process. The only people in this agency’s boardroom and upper echelons would be those with a proven record of defending nature. This is the agency Scotland needs.

The politicians we require are those willing to make that change. If John Swinney and his heir apparent, Kate Forbes, think that the opponents of nature restoration are the only rural voters he needs to win over, he has made a grave mistake.

Tom Bowser is the owner of Argaty, a working farm based on the Braes of Doune in central Scotland, which aims to produce food in an environmentally sensitive manner and to make a home for nature. Tom is author of A Sky Full Of Kites: A Rewilding Story and the forthcoming Waters Of Life: Fighting For Scotland’s Beavers.

ENDS

Tom’s latest book is due out 1st May 2025. It is available for pre-order from the publisher here.