Category: Persecution Incidents in England

Stody Estate subsidy penalties: another update

IMG_4752 (2) - CopyA year ago, gamekeeper Allen Lambert was convicted of a series of wildlife crime offences on the Stody Estate in Norfolk, including the mass poisoning of birds of prey (10 buzzards and one sparrowhawk) which had been found dead on the estate in April 2013 (see here and here).

We found out that the Stody Estate had received millions of pounds worth of agricultural subsidies (i.e. money given to them from our taxes to help them farm on the condition they look after the wildlife and wildlife habitats under their management) and we wanted to find out whether the Estate would now face a financial penalty in the form of a reduction in their subsidies for what was a very serious breach of the cross-compliance regulations.

One year later and we’re still trying to find out.

In October 2014, the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) told us they “would consider action against Stody Estate“, although one of our blog readers was told, “there is no investigation ongoing” (see here).

In December 2014, one of our blog readers contacted the RPA again to ask for an update. The RPA responded in January 2015 by saying “We are unable to provide you with any meaningful response as we do not hold any information that answers your questions” (see here).

In July 2015, we again wrote to the RPA to ask whether they had imposed a penalty on Stody Estate. We were told that as the convicted gamekeeper wasn’t the actual subsidy recipient, the RPA was trying to determine whether there was “a link” between the convicted gamekeeper and the subsidy recipient (i.e. his employer) and if so, whether the recipient (Stody Estate) could be considered liable for the actions of the gamekeeper (see here). Amazing.

As the one-year anniversary of the gamekeeper’s conviction approached, in September 2015 we wrote to the RPA again to see whether they’d now worked out “a link” between the convicted employee and his employer. Last week they responded with this:

“The Rural Payments Agency (RPA) has notified the Stody Estate in Norfolk that a cross compliance breach occurred, as [sic] result of the actions of their gamekeeper. This is because the estate is vicariously liable for the actions of their employees. Under European cross compliance rules, the RPA is obliged to follow-up reports of cross compliance breaches brought to its attention. The rates of applicable reductions are explained in the scheme rules“.

So, the inefficient RPA has taken a year to decide that there was a cross compliance breach, but we still don’t know whether a financial penalty has been imposed, and if it has, what its value is.

According to the RPA’s ‘scheme rules’, cross compliance breaches can be categorised  as either ‘negligible’ or ‘intentional’, and the severity of the penalty is dependent on this.

For negligible non-compliance (falls below the standard of care expected of a competent claimant) subsidy payment is normally reduced by 3% but could range from 1-5% depending on the extent, severity, re-occurrence and permanence of the non-compliance.

For intentional non-compliance, payments will normally be reduced by 20%, but may be reduced to 15% or increased to 100% depending on the extent, severity, re-occurrence and permanence of the non-compliance.

What do you think? Is laying out banned poisons that kill 11 raptors a negligible or intentional non-compliance?

Given that we don’t know how the RPA will determine if the breaches were negligible or intentional, and given that we don’t know how much of our money was awarded to the Stody Estate in 2013 (the year the breaches occurred), although judging by the amounts they received between 2004-2012 it was probably a considerable sum (see here), it’s difficult for us to establish even a rough guesstimate of what the penalty might be, and that’s assuming that the RPA has decided a penalty is warranted.

So, we’ve written, again, to the RPA to ask whether a penalty has been imposed (and if not, why not) and if it has been imposed, how much is it?

Three more poisoned red kites

WT J 1 as I foundThe following press release has been issued today by FoRK (Friends of Red Kites) –

POISONING OF RED KITES CONDEMNED

Three red kites have been found illegally poisoned in a blow to efforts to re-establish a thriving population across north east England.

One found near a grouse moor died from Carbofuran poisoning despite the use of the chemical being banned in Britain since 2002. The two others were found together and died as a result of poisoning by Aldicarb, a widely-used pesticide which has been implicated in deliberate poisonings elsewhere in Britain.

The bodies of all three were recovered and sent for post-mortem examination after tip-offs from the public.

The three deaths, revealed by Friends of Red Kites (FoRK), the voluntary group set up to protect and monitor the population, brings the region’s total number of known kite casualties from illegal poisoning to ten in recent years.

FoRK has condemned the killings but fears that the known deaths are just the tip of the iceberg and that many more dead birds are never found. It believes that persistent persecution, mainly through illegal poisoned baits, is among factors preventing the birds from spreading from their core Derwent Valley sites.

The bird killed by Carbofuran was found near Edmundbyers, Co Durham. The two others were found at High Spen, Gateshead, and included a wing-tagged female from a nearby breeding site which had produced young for the previous four years.

Previous poisoning involved two kites found dead in Hexhamshire and a breeding pair killed near Whittonstall whose chicks then perished in the nest. Other local kites were found poisoned in Teesdale and Wharfedale, Yorkshire. Another bird, which moved to Scotland, was found poisoned in the Cairngorms. Other kites have been found in suspicious circumstances but have been dead too long for scientific examination.

Allan Withrington, FoRK Kite Welfare Officer, said: “These poisonings are appalling and totally unacceptable. Carbofuran has been illegal in this country for many years but is still apparently the poison of choice of those who illegally put out poisoned baits to target raptors, crows and foxes. 

Leaving poisoned baits in the open is not only illegal but completely indiscriminate as the deaths of many bird and animals, including dogs and cats, has shown over the years.

We will be continuing to do everything possible to expose those responsible and work with the police, farmers, landowners and other conservation organisations to protect the red kites and other species.”

The most recent available figures from the RSPB show that there were 76 confirmed cases of illegal poisoning in Britain in 2013, including 19 from Carbofuran and 5 from Albicarb. Twenty-one red kites were among the victims which also included buzzard, white-tailed eagle, golden eagle and marsh harrier. Raven, magpie, sparrowhawk and even a collared dove also died along with two dogs and two cats.

Britain’s single worst recorded wildlife poisoning incident occurred in April 2014 with red kites being the main victims. 16 kites and six buzzards were found dead near Inverness. Despite a major investigation by Police Scotland and rewards totalling £32,000 being offered no-one has been charged.

ENDS

There are a number of interesting facets to this press release. Firstly, no dates are given for when these birds were found poisoned. We can’t be certain, but the press release may refer to three poisoned kites that were discovered in Co Durham in 2014: two in November 2014 and one in December 2014, according to government statistics. It’s possible that the three kites mentioned in the above press release were poisoned this year, but the published government stats only cover the first quarter of 2015 (up until March) and no poisoned kites in Co Durham are present in those figures. These days we have to wait more than six months to find out what’s actually been going on more recently so if they were poisoned after March 2015 we might find out about it ‘officially’ sometime after Christmas.

The second interesting point about this press release is it has come from FoRK. Here’s how FoRK describe themselves:

The Friends of Red Kites (FoRK) is a constituted, membership-based, community organisation which was formed by volunteers in 2009 to continue to encourage an active interest in the conservation of the red kite population in Gateshead’s Lower Derwent Valley and to continue to monitor their health & welfare.

FoRK is the successor to the funded Northern Kites Project which was responsible for the re-introduction of 94 young red kites in the core area between 2004 – 2009. In 2006 red kites began to breed in the region for the first time after an absence of 170 years.

Interesting then that a voluntary, community-based organisation has issued this press statement, and not the police and not Natural England. Has FoRK issued this press statement because they’re tired of waiting for action by the authorities? Was there a police follow up? Was there a follow up by Natural England? If these three birds were poisoned in November and December 2014, why haven’t the police or Natural England said anything? Could their (apparent) silence / inaction have anything to do with the localities of the poisoned carcasses? Check out the village of Edmundbyers on a Google Earth map – see all those weird rectangular shapes on the hills surrounding the village? They’re the tell-tale muirburn strips (burnt heather) that indicate that this area is dominated by driven grouse moors.

Say no more.

Petition to ban driven grouse shooting – PLEASE SIGN HERE

Friends of Red Kites (FoRK) website here

Edmundbyers

 

Stody Estate subsidy penalties: an update

IMG_4752 (2) - CopyOn 1st October 2014, gamekeeper Allen Lambert from the Stody Estate in Norfolk was found guilty of poisoning 10 buzzards and one sparrowhawk, which had been found dead on the estate in April 2013. He was also convicted of storing banned pesticides & other items capable of preparing poisoned baits (a ‘poisoner’s kit’), and a firearms offence (see here and here).

On 6th November 2014, Lambert was sentenced. Even though the magistrate acknowledged that Lambert’s crimes passed the custody threshold, he only received a 10 week suspended sentence for poisoning 11 raptors (suspended for one year), a six week suspended sentence for possession of firearms and nine poisoned buzzards (suspended for one year), and was ordered to pay £930 prosecution costs and an £80 victim surcharge.

On 5th October 2014, we blogged about the millions of pounds worth of subsidies that had been awarded to Stody Estate in recent years (see here) and we encouraged blog readers to contact the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) to ask whether Stody Estate would receive a financial penalty in the form of subsidy withdrawal for being in breach of the terms & conditions of their subsidy-fest.

On 10th October 2014, the RPA responded by saying they would consider what action could be taken against Stody Estate (see here).

Then it all went quiet.

In December 2014, one of our blog readers submitted an FoI to the RPA to ask what was happening. In January 2015, the RPA responded by saying they ‘weren’t able to provide a meaningful response’ but said they would take action if it was found to be appropriate to do so (see here).

Six months on, we thought it was time for an update so an FoI was sent to the RPA to ask whether they had implemented a subsidy penalty. This is their response:

Dear XXXXX XXXXX

Thank you for your email dated 5 July 2015 regarding Stody Estate.

Cross Compliance rules only apply to recipients of Single Payment Scheme or certain Rural Development scheme payment in the year in which a cross compliance breach is found.

The person prosecuted for the offences mentioned in your e-mail is not a recipient of either of these types of payment.  Therefore before RPA can take further action, it will be necessary to determine whether there [sic] a link between this person and a subsidy recipient and, if there is, whether that recipient can be considered liable for the actions of the person who committed the breaches.

Identifying whether the person prosecuted is linked to a subsidy recipient will form a key part of our investigations.

Should you have any further queries please contact us again quoting reference number XXXXX

Regards

Helen Hunter

Customer Service Centre, Operations

END

This is all very interesting. The mass illegal poisoning of birds of prey took place on Stody Estate and a Stody Estate employee, gamekeeper Allen Lambert, was convicted of these crimes and several others. But the Rural Payments Agency is still trying to determine whether there is a link between Lambert and the Stody Estate. Eh?

It’s not very convincing is it?

Perhaps the RPA should have a read of the judge’s comments about the relationship between Lambert and his (now former) employer – see here.

DEFRA’s plans unchanged despite loss of 5 breeding hen harriers

In June, following the news that five breeding male hen harriers had ‘disappeared’ from active nests this year, one of our blog readers submitted an FoI to DEFRA to ask about the Westminster Government’s contingency plans to protect hen harriers and to deal with the criminals who continue to persecute hen harriers and other wildlife:

Sir/ Madam

I am making a Freedom of Information request regarding hen harriers/ illegal persecution of wildlife.

1) With the recent losses of five male birds in northern England, as published in Natural England’s press release (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/five-hen-harriers-have-now-disappeared-from-northern-england), what is the Government’s contingency plan(s) to prevent the species becoming extinct in the wild in England as a direct result of illegal persecution within the next 5 years, i.e. the duration of this Parliament?  If there are no contingency plans, why are there no contingency plans?

2) In a recent court case in Spain (see http://www.venenono.org/?p=2506 with an English summary available here:https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2015/06/09/now-thats-a-deterrent/, the sanction imposed on an individual found guilty of a wildlife offence was considerably more severe compared with recent similar incidents in England.  Does the UK Government have any plans to introduce similar sanctions that would act as a meaningful deterrent to wildlife criminals?  If not, why not?

3) Does the Government consider the current sanctions available to Magistrates/ Judges sufficiently severe to act as a deterrent to wildlife criminals, within the context of those imposed in the aforementioned Spanish case?

4) As in Spain, is the Government seriously considering introducing ‘sniffer dogs’ able to detect the use of poisoned bait as described in the article published by Raptor Persecution Scotland? If not, why not?

Many thanks,

XXXXX XXXXX

Here is DEFRA’s response:

Dear XXXXX XXXXX

Thank you for your request of 11 June about the illegal persecution of hen harriers. I have been asked to reply.

We share your concerns regarding the recent losses of five hen harriers but are encouraged by the news of several nests this year, following on from four nests in 2014, with 16 fledglings. In 2013, for the first time in over 50 years, there were no known fledglings.

All wild birds are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which implements the EC Wild Birds Directive in Great Britain. This provides a powerful framework for the conservation of wild birds, their eggs, nests and habitats. I can assure you that we are committed to ensuring the strict protection afforded to wild birds of prey under our wildlife legislation is effectively enforced. There is a robust legal framework for protecting such birds with strong penalties for offenders, which can include imprisonment.

Despite the protection afforded to birds of prey, it is clear that they continue to be persecuted. To address this, senior Government and enforcement officers in the UK identified raptor persecution as a National Wildlife Crime Priority. Raptor persecution is subject to a prevention, intelligence and enforcement plan led by a senior police officer. The National Wildlife Crime Unit, which is part-funded by Defra, monitors and gathers intelligence on illegal activities affecting birds of prey and provides assistance to police forces when required.

It should be noted that despite instances of poisoning and killing of birds of prey, populations of many species, such as the peregrine falcon, red kite and buzzard have increased. While a small minority is prepared to kill birds of prey and where possible these people are brought to justice, this demonstrates that the policies in place to conserve these species are working.

One of our most threatened birds of prey is the hen harrier and we take the decline in hen harrier populations in England very seriously. In August 2012 Defra established the Hen Harrier Sub-Group of the Uplands Stakeholder Forum whose members include representatives from Natural England, the Moorland Association, the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, National Parks UK and the RSPB.

All members of the Hen Harrier Sub-Group have a common interest to protect hen harriers.  They have made concerted efforts to engage and have produced a Joint Action Plan that contains a suite of actions intended to contribute to the recovery of the hen harrier population in England. The commitment shown by the differing organisations involved in the Sub-Group to help the recovery of one of our most iconic birds demonstrates a desire to bring about behavioural change amongst gamekeepers and confidence that this can be achieved through a package of complementary actions.

The Joint Action Plan includes three measures to stamp out illegal persecution, a trial toolkit comprising two measures for land owners to safely accommodate hen harriers on grouse moors and a measure to reintroduce them to suitable habitat in other parts of England. Defra officials are currently working with Sub-Group members to finalise the Plan.

As previously stated there are already strong penalties in place for people committing offences against birds of prey. You have asked if the Government intends to introduce tougher penalties for those convicted of wildlife crimes. I should first point out that Parliament is responsible for deciding the maximum penalties for offences. There are currently no plans to increase the penalties for offences against wildlife. Within the maximum limits, it is up to the court to decide the appropriate sentence in any case, having taken into account all the facts of the case.

We are aware that sniffer dogs are used in other countries, including Italy, Spain and Greece, to detect poisoned bait but are not aware that enforcement bodies in the UK have this resource or are considering it for the future. This would be a matter for individual Police forces to decide upon.

Yours sincerely,
Charlie Coombs
Customer Contact Unit

New sentencing powers for wildlife crime in England & Wales

cash pile 2Well this is good news!

The following article appears in the RSPB’s latest Legal Eagle newsletter:

New magistrates’ court powers to impose larger fines in environmental offences.

Magistrates’ courts now have the power to impose fines of an unlimited amount on individuals or organisations convicted in England and Wales for criminal offences, which would previously have attracted a fine capped at £5,000 or more. This change to the law came into force in March, and applies to many environmental offences.

This alteration has come about due to provisions in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Act 2012 coming into force on 12 March 2015.

This is a significant expansion of magistrates’ sentencing powers.

The new provisions apply to all “summary” offences (which are always heard by the magistrates’ courts) and also to “either way” offences when dealt with in the magistrates’ (rather than the Crown) court. They apply to all offences committed after 12 March 2015 where they would previously have attracted a fine capped at £5,000 or more.

Examples of offences affected are:

  • Wildlife offences contained in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. These summary offences, until 12 March 2015, attracted a fine capped at £5,000.
  • Wider environmental offences under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010. These (mostly “either way”) offences previously imposed fines of up to £50,000 depending on the type and nature of the offence.

In both cases the former maximum sentencing caps have now been removed and fines that can be imposed by the magistrates’ court are unlimited.

The rationale behind the new provisions is to enable more proportionate fines to be imposed on “wealthy or corporate offenders or organisations” and to reduce the number of referrals to the Crown Court for sentencing, which can be time consuming and costly. Only time will tell whether, in the absence of the maximum cap, magistrates will still continue to impose lower fines than the Crown Court.

END

Excellent! Now all we need is to get the cases to court and for the magistrates to accept the evidence…

In related (sort of) news, Westminster MPs are to be given a free vote on changes to the fox hunting laws (see here and especially here). The Countryside Alliance is supporting this move (of course) and says, “These amendments [if approved] will bring the law in to line with Scotland…” Interesting. Does that mean we can expect to see the Countryside Alliance campaigning for the introduction of vicarious liability for raptor persecution offences in England and Wales ‘to bring the law in to line with Scotland’? No, thought not.

Shot peregrine found in County Durham has to be euthanised

shot perg june 2015 durham_peregrinefalconjohnolleyThe Police and the RSPB are appealing for information following the discovery of a shot peregrine last month.

The bird was found, still alive, on 4th June at Castle Lake, Bishop Middleham, a local nature reserve managed by Durham Bird Club.

After a veterinary examination the male’s injuries were considered so severe it was decided to put him to sleep.

The RSPB is offering a £1,000 reward for information that leads to a successful conviction.

RSPB press release here

Photo of shot peregrine by John Olley

Trial against gamekeeper Neil Wainwright gets underway

The trial against Shropshire gamekeeper Neil Wainwright got underway on Tuesday.

Wainwright, 55, of Norbury, Bishop’s Castle, is accused of baiting a Larsen trap with live quail to catch birds of prey. The offences are alleged to have taken place at Birch Hill Wood in Gatten, Stipperstones, in July 2014. Wainwright has denied these charges, but at an earlier hearing pled guilty to three other charges relating the storage of firearms, ammunition and poison (see here and here).

According to an article published yesterday in the Shropshire Star (see below), Wainwright’s defence is that he was using the Larsen to trap a mink, not birds of prey.

We always enjoy reading the far-fetched explanations of gamekeepers who have been accused of alleged wildlife crimes. Rarely plausible, they often push the boundaries of credibility. Recently-convicted Kildrummy Estate gamekeeper George Mutch’s explanation was a classic – he claimed he’d killed the goshawk he’d caught in his Larsen trap as a mercy mission because it was injured. The Sheriff in that case called it “a convenient lie”. Recently-convicted Swinton Estate gamekeeper Ryan Waite claimed the two illegal pole traps he’d set were for targeting squirrels, not raptors. Recently-convicted Stody Estate gamekeeper Allen Lambert claimed the 11 poisoned raptors found on his estate had been dumped there by someone with a vendetta against him.

It’s not just gamekeepers, either.

Following the discovery last month of 16 fox cubs found inside a barn in North Yorkshire in suspicious circumstances, Lord Middleton, a local landowner and hunstman reportedly suggested that the cubs ‘were being cared for by the Hunt for kind reasons’ (see here).

Wainwright’s trial will continue on 29th June 2015.

The Shropshire Star published an article yesterday about the first day of the trial although the article has now vanished from their website. Here’s a copy:

From Shropshire Star 17 June 2015

Neil Gordon Wainwright a gamekeeper used a metal Larsen trap designed to catch magpies, crows and jays he had baited with two live white quail to catch birds of prey at Birch Hill Wood in Gatten, near the Stiperstones, Shrewsbury, Magistrates Court were told by the RSPB. An inspector for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds noticed the trap while walking on a public way and set up two covert cameras to record who came to attend to it.

Wainwright, 55, of Norbury, near Bishop’s Castle, denies charges of using a trap to kill or take a wild bird, possessing an article capable of being used to commit an offence, and failing to take steps to ensure that the needs of an animal were met.

The offences are said to have taken place between July 21 and 31 last year.

District judge Kevin Grego heard yesterday that an RSPB inspector had visited Birch Hill Wood on July 23 and believed that an offence was being committed.

Mr Richard Davenport, prosecuting, told the court that the inspector noticed that a Larsen trap had been baited with two white quails and set close to a pheasant release pen.

Howard Jones, RSPB inspector, said he had been walking on a public right of way when he saw the pheasant pen. He found the Larsen trap and then returned a day later to install the cameras.

Mr Jones said he and another inspector had checked the footage and over the course of several days the defendant was seen going to the trap.

At one point Wainwright was seen with a dead buzzard in his hands. The incidents were reported to the police and a warrant to search Wainwright’s home and outbuildings was carried out on August 5. Expert witness Dr Rodney Calvert, from Natural England and a specialist on trapping, said he had never known of a Larsen trap being used to catch anything other than crows or magpies.

Wainwright’s defence is that he was using the trap to catch mink and stoats which had been taking his game birds.

Dr Calvert said that using live quail as bait would not attract such animals but would be likely to attract wild birds.

Wainwright, who has several captive peregrine falcons and an owl at his home, said he had used the quail as bait “as an act of desperation”. He said he had been targeted by a mink and had decided to bait the trap to try and catch it.

The trial was adjourned until June 29 and will be heard at Telford Magistrates Court.

More media coverage of hen harrier persecution

It sounds like an odd thing to say, but something good has stemmed from the ‘disappearance’ of five breeding hen harrier males this year, and that’s the amount of media coverage generated by these incidents.

The national press has been all over these crimes (and yes, we are calling them crimes because you’d have to be either pretty dense and/or wilfully obstructive to claim that these ‘disappearances’ are the result of anything else) with plenty of column inches in the Guardian, Independent, Daily Mail and Express, as well as TV broadcasting on the BBC News and Channel 4 News. Social media has also been busy, with massive coverage on Twitter and Facebook in addition to constant coverage on several well-read personal blogs, all with a wide social reach.

Instrumental to all this media attention was the release of the information in the first place, and for that we have the RSPB to thank. As a result, the RSPB find themselves at the centre of (another) targeted slur campaign, funded by the industry with the most to lose in terms of public perception when news gets out about another ‘missing’ hen harrier in yet another area managed for driven grouse shooting. The funny part is, the more they smear the RSPB, the more that news editors will want to run the story, so the more people are going to hear about what’s going on.

Some may worry about what’s been written in some of the papers – the Daily Mail coverage was, well, pretty much what you’d expect from the Daily Mail (with it’s grouse moor-owning proprietor), but did that matter? Apparently not. The plight of the hen harrier has never been so high profile and never have so many people raised their voices in support of this species – it’s inconceivable that just a couple of years ago the hen harrier would have been voted the nation’s 9th favourite bird (as it was this week) – it would have been lucky to have made the Top 100, let alone the Top Ten. That’s pretty impressive, especially when you consider that the grassroots campaign in support of the hen harrier is still pretty young – it’s only really just got started.

There’s even more media coverage this weekend, with this article in the Independent. It doesn’t really tell us anything new, apart from learning that United Utilities had ‘banned’ the reporter from visiting the one remaining hen harrier nest in Bowland because the issue had become “too political”, whatever that means. But the content of the article isn’t really what’s interesting – what is interesting is that the Independent thought this issue newsworthy enough to send a journalist all the way from London to Cumbria to look at the now abandoned hen harrier nest on the Geltsdale Reserve. The accompanying text is largely irrelevant (although undoubtedly it will have been read by some people who were previously unaware of hen harrier persecution on driven grouse moors, so that’s good); it’s the fact that the story is being published in the mainstream media, again, that’s important.

Not only does extensive media coverage reach an ever-increasing audience, it also helps to build pressure on the authorities who are in a position to do something about these seemingly untouchable raptor killers, but so far have managed to do virtually nothing, or at least anything meaningful.

A few days ago the UK Government’s statutory nature conservation agency, Natural England, published a statement in response to the news that five breeding male hen harriers have ‘disappeared’. You can read it here. It tells us how ‘concerned’ they are, but other than that, it seems to be business as usual. More satellite-tagging to “provide even more detailed information on how birds move around the landscape and the factors currently limiting the population”.

That’ll be the same satellite tag information they’ve been collecting for the last eight years and have yet to publish in any detail.

Norfolk businessman puts up £5K reward to catch raptor persecutors

Mervyn Lambert NorfolkLast month somebody stole a clutch of eggs from a Marsh harrier nest in Norfolk (see here). Around the same time, eggs were also stolen from a Kestrel’s nest and a wagtail’s nest. Norfolk Constabulary are linking the three thefts.

In response, local businessman Mervyn Lambert is offering a £5,000 reward for information, adding to the other £2,000 already available (£1K from the Eastern Daily Press and £1K from the Hawk & Owl Trust).

However, Mr Lambert isn’t limiting his offer to these three crimes. “I’ll give £5,000 for any information, not only about stealing birds’ eggs but poisoning, trapping and shooting protected birds“.

Good stuff.

Further details in the Eastern Daily Press here.

Desperate days as 5th male hen harrier ‘disappears’

Another male hen harrier has ‘disappeared’ from an active nest – the 5th this year.

Three males vanished from nesting territories in Bowland in late April/early May (see here).

Another male vanished from its nesting territory on Geltsdale last week (see here).

And now the 5th – last seen on the United Utilities Estate in Bowland on 29th May (see here).

Is it shocking news? Yes, but not because we didn’t expect it. It’s shocking because the persecution of this species is so, so brazen.

It should now be clear (as if it hasn’t been for decades) that the people responsible, and the grouse-shooting industry that shields them, need to be brought to their knees.

We can all do that.

We must do that.

We will find a way to do that.