Tag: gamekeeper

North Wales Police investigation launched after snares found set next to Ruabon Moor, two years after ban

Press release from Green Britain Foundation (23 October 2025)

LANDMARK: FIRST FORMAL ILLEGAL SNARE-USE INVESTIGATION SINCE BANS IN WALES/SCOTLAND

Footage obtained by Green Britain Foundation shows alleged snare-setting at a stink pit near Ruabon Moor, North Wales

Green Britain Foundation (GBF) has obtained undercover footage prompting what is believed to be the first formal police investigation in either Wales or Scotland into suspected snare use since the bans came into force. The footage shows individuals checking and setting snares at a stink pit* on the edge of Ruabon Grouse Moor in North Wales, within Llandegla Forest. The footage has been supplied to North Wales Police and a formal investigation is now underway.

*A “stink pit” is a bait site where dead animals (“carcasses”) are piled specifically to attract wildlife, typically predators, towards surrounding snares.

Snares are illegal in Wales (since 2023) and banned in Scotland (since 2024). Offences include setting a snare and permitting snares to be set on one’s land.

Snare set next to stink pit next to Ruabon Moor (photo copyright Green Britain Foundation)
Dead Red-legged Partridges chucked on the stink pit (photo copyright Green Britain Foundation)

Dale Vince, Founder, Green Britain Foundation, says:

“Snares are medieval cruelty. Wales and Scotland banned them for good reason. This footage shows people ignoring the law, continuing to use snares to kill wild animals in support of the bloodsport business. Snares are indiscriminate, killing all kinds of wildlife in the most hideously cruel way. The police are investigating, and that’s welcome. Landowners are complicit in this, snares are used to kill wildlife in support of bird breeding as part of the business – shooting birds for sport and for money. Labour should make good on its pre-election pledge and ban snares in England – without further delay.”

What the footage shows

28 June 2025 – live snares documented ~20m inside the Llandegla Forest boundary, arranged around a “stink pit” (carcasses used to attract predators).

30 June – 15 August 2025 – Covert cameras record multiple visits by several individuals believed to be engaged in gamekeeping; apparent checking/adjusting of snares and servicing of the site.

25 July 2025 – Carcasses of red-legged partridges logged at the stink pit.

25 August 2025 – Police notified; officers attended, documented the scene, and removed snares as evidence.

Status: North Wales Police have commenced a formal investigation.

Why it matters

  1. Landmark enforcement moment: Believed to be the first formal police investigation into suspected snare use in a UK nation after the bans in Wales and Scotland—an early indicator of how enforcement will work in practice.
  2. Purpose on shooting estates: Snares are commonly deployed as “predator control” to maximise numbers of grouse and other gamebirds for commercial and recreational shoots—in short, a tool to ensure those who shoot birds for fun can shoot more of them.
  3. Indiscriminate by design: Snares cannot select species—they can and do catch non-target wildlife (such as badgers) and have been known to catch pet cats and dogs.
  4. Landowner responsibility: We understand Llandegla Forest is linked to estates associated with the Church Commissioners for England. GBF calls for full cooperation and compliance audits across relevant holdings.
  5. England’s policy gap: England has not yet introduced a snaring ban. With workable bans in Wales and Scotland, GBF urges the Labour Government to make good on its pledge and implement a ban in England as a priority.

ENDS

This is interesting on several levels.

First of all, as the press release points out, this is believed to be the first police investigation into alleged snaring offences since snaring was banned in Wales two years ago. Given the high quality close footage provided to North Wales Police, there shouldn’t be any of the usual problems of not being able to identify the individuals seen attending the site.

Secondly, the location of the alleged offence is next to Ruabon Moor, the only grouse-shooting estate in North Wales. Ruabon Moor has been at the centre of a number of police investigations in recent years, including the suspicious disappearance of a number of satellite-tagged Hen Harriers, the discovery of a poisoned Raven, and the suspected use of a trap to capture Goshawks. In addition, a couple of years ago another group, called Wildlife Guardian, documented some strange behaviour on Ruabon Moor (here)

Nobody has been convicted of any offences at Ruabon Moor. A prosecution against a gamekeeper (for alleged use of a trap to take a wild bird) was abandoned last year after the Crown Prosecution Service determined that it was not in the public interest to continue – a decision that was challenged by the RSPB, North Wales Police and the National Wildlife Crime Unit (see here).

The third point of interest is the group that has brought the latest alleged offences to the attention of North Wales Police. As far as I’m aware, this is the first foray into wildlife crime investigations by the Green Britain Foundation. They’ve managed to get wide press coverage, including on the BBC News website. Excellent work.

I look forward to seeing how this case progresses.

“SNP caves to shooting lobby” – reactions to Scottish Government’s decision to delay muirburn licensing (again)

As expected, the Scottish Government’s announcement on Thursday that it has delayed the implementation of muirburn licensing (for the second time) has been met with anger.

Scottish Greens MSP Ariane Burgess said the Scottish Government has ‘caved to the shooting lobby‘ and accused Ministers of putting the interests of wealthy landowners ahead of environmental protection and public safety.

She is calling for the immediate implementation of muirburn licensing, proper investment in emergency services, and a supported shift away from land management practices that fuel ecological degradation.

Ariane continued:

“This is deeply disappointing. We have just had a summer of devastating wildfires across Scotland, and it is vital that we act rather than backtracking. Yet again, the SNP is bending to the demands of wealthy landowners.

“During the scrutiny of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Act we took detailed evidence on the role of muirburn in wildfire risk. There is very little credible evidence to support the hunting and shooting lobby’s ridiculous claim that these practices have any role in preventing wildfires“.

RSPB Scotland has also published a blog in reaction to the Government’s decision, saying ‘Scotland’s wildlife can’t afford any more delays to muirburn legislation’.

RSPB Senior Land Use Policy Officer Andrew Midgley said it was “a huge disappointment to those of us who wish to see this potentially damaging and often risky activity properly regulated. This is the second time it has been kicked down the road. 

“On the very same day, in a sadly ironic twist, muirburn that was reported as being conducted on a grouse moor in Aberdeenshire got out of control and started a wildfire. The wildfire spread onto a neighbouring National Nature Reserve managed by the Government agency NatureScot, and burnt into woodland that is part of our network of internationally important nature conservation sites. That this occurred is no cause for gloating. It’s a tragic lesson in why regulation is needed without further delay. 

“It’s now nearly six years since an independent group recommended that the regulation of burning in the hills be strengthened and it’s eighteen months since the legislation was passed in the Scottish Parliament. It was acknowledged that muirburn is a high-risk land management activity that should be carefully managed and that regulation would help. This latest delay is further evidence that the Government and NatureScot are failing to properly get a grasp of this issue“.    

The out-of-control muirburn that was started on a grouse moor in the Cairngorms National Park on Thursday, just a few hours after the Scottish Government’s announcement, is thought to have had a 3km wide front and has burned approximately 200ha.

Local sources have reported that the fire burned approximately 5ha of the Muir of Dinnet National Nature Reserve before the Scottish Fire & Rescue Service were able to get it under control.

A scene from the aftermath, from @kredp.bsky.social

Why on earth gamekeepers were lighting fires under conditions known to present a high risk factor remains to be answered. But in a masterclass of irony, SGA Committee member Ronnie Kippen posted this on the same day:

You’re dead right, Ronnie, it was only a matter of time (just a few hours, in fact) before another massive wildfire erupted in the Cairngorms National Park ‘due to mismanagement of habitat’.

Strangely, I haven’t seen any of the usual suspects shouting about the Dinnet wildfire – in complete contrast to the publicity they’ve given to other wildfires this year where grouse moor management wasn’t thought to be implicated.

Meanwhile, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA) has welcomed the Government’s decision to delay muirburn licensing, describing it as “common sense“.

No surprise really, this is the same organisation that thinks White-tailed Eagles could eat small children, that “strongly believe the goshawk never was indigenous to the United Kingdom and there is absolutely no hard evidence to suggest otherwise” (here), that think it’s “unfair to accuse gamekeepers of wildlife crime” (here) and plenty of other examples of assorted nonsense.

The SGA’s statement in response to the muirburn licensing delay concludes with this statement:

“The SGA supports the Minister’s move and looks forward to making future changes more workable, drawing on our members’ centuries of knowledge in this area“.

“Making future changes more workable”? That suggests that the SGA is willing to accept the principle of muirburn licensing, albeit with “future changes“.

However, if you look closely at the list of amendments put forward to Stage 3 of the Land Reform Bill (due to be debated at the end of this month), you’ll see that Tim Eagle MSP (Scottish Conservative, Highlands & Islands) has lodged an amendment to repeal muirburn licensing altogether:

I doubt very much whether Mr Eagle has lodged this amendment without the lobbying, encouragement and support of the land management sector – I wonder whether the SGA has been part of that lobbying effort?

It’s good to see another amendment, lodged by Ariane Burgess MSP, calling for peatland to be redefined as that having 30cm depth instead of 40cm depth, which would bring it in line with the new definition in England.

UPDATE 13 October 2025: ‘The problem, which the Scottish Government is willfully ignoring, is that muirburn is responsible for a large number of wildfires’ (here)

UPDATE 30 October 2025: Scottish Govt fiddles while grouse moors burn (here)

29 ‘missing’ Hen Harriers & nearly 40 birds of prey poisoned, trapped or shot in Yorkshire Dales National Park since 2015

Media attention has been drawn to the Yorkshire Dales National Park this week, following the RSPB’s press release on the suspicious disappearance of a satellite-tagged Hen Harrier named ‘Sita’.

When it comes to the illegal killing of birds of prey, the Yorkshire Dales National Park is rarely out of the news, and that’s hardly surprising when 29 satellite-tagged Hen Harriers have gone ‘missing’ there and 39 other raptors have been found poisoned, trapped or shot there since 2015, including Peregrines, Hen Harriers, Red Kites and Buzzards.

Yorkshire Dales National Park. Photo by Ruth Tingay

Given these appalling figures, the RSPB has described the Yorkshire Dales National Park as a ‘no-fly zone for birds of prey’.

High profile cases within the National Park have included the conviction of a gamekeeper who was filmed shooting two Short-eared Owls on a grouse moor and then stamping the corpse of one of them into the peat and shoving the other one inside a drystone wall (here); a gamekeeper filmed on a grouse moor using a tethered Eagle Owl to attract Buzzards that he then shot and killed from close range (here); the stamping to death of four Hen Harrier chicks in a nest on a grouse moor (after obscuring the camera pointing at the nest, here); the grisly death of a Hen Harrier caused by his head and leg being pulled off whilst he was still alive (here); and three individuals caught on camera on a grouse moor discussing the shooting and killing of a Buzzard and a Raven before apparently shooting and killing a Hen Harrier (here) – one gamekeeper has been charged with conspiracy to kill a Hen Harrier, he has pleaded not guilty and his case will proceed to trial in January 2026 after his barrister failed in his attempt to have the case thrown out on a legal technicality.

The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority has also long recognised the extent of this criminal activity and has responded to public concern (e.g. see here and here). Earlier this year the Park Authority terminated its five-year ‘partnership’ with the grouse shooting industry to tackle these crimes, after recognising the futility of this endeavour. Two conservation organisations (the RSPB and the Northern England Raptor Forum) had already walked away from the sham in 2023 and 2024 respectively.

In an article published a couple of days ago by the Craven Herald & Pioneer, Mark Corner, a member of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority is quoted saying the continued illegal killing of raptors in the Park was “a crying shame“.

He added: “As the member champion for the natural environment, I’m personally embarrassed that we are the worst spot in the country in terms of the illegal killing of birds.”

In the same article, there’s an hilarious quote from the Yorkshire Dales Moorland Group, which is one of a number of regional groups set up in 2015 to represent local grouse moor owners and their gamekeepers in an attempt to counter the bad publicity about ongoing illegal raptor persecution. I think that members of most of these regional moorland groups have been, or still are, the subject of police investigations into illegal raptor persecution.

A spokesperson for the Yorkshire Dales Moorland Group reportedly told the reporter that ‘hen harrier numbers were at a 200-year high across the uplands’.

That’s simply not true – Hen Harrier breeding attempts on grouse moors across the north of England have been in sharp decline over the last two years – the only areas where they remain stable is on land managed for conservation rather than for Red Grouse shooting.

According to its FaceBook page, the Yorkshire Dales Moorland Group claims to have “around 100,000 acres of managed uplands here in the Dales where the estates are members of this group (virtually all of the moors)“.

Why is it then, there were only two Hen Harrier breeding attempts in 2025 across the whole of the Yorkshire Dales and neighbouring Nidderdale? I’d like the Moorland Group to provide a plausible explanation for these absences.

The Yorkshire Dales Moorland Group also told the Craven Herald reporter:

“Our keepers have and will always assist the police in searches for missing persons, lost dogs or missing birds. Tag failure is rare but not unheard of.

“The default accusation that persecution is responsible is regrettable. The conservation work undertaken by moor keepers is commendable as can be seen by the abundance of raptors and other rare species in the Dales“.

What “abundance of raptors” are those then? All the dead ones? Or just the ones that are allowed to breed because they don’t pose any threat to Red Grouse stocks?

And if these grouse shooting estates are so keen to help the police, how many of them signed the letter last year agreeing to allow the police to enter the land and use equipment for the purposes of crime prevention and detection? Did any of them sign it?

And if these gamekeepers are so keen to help police investigations, how many of them have given ‘no comment’ responses when interviewed about suspected raptor persecution crimes on these moors? Maybe it’d be quicker to count how many gamekeeper didn’t give a ‘no comment’ interview.

The article also quotes Alex Farrell, Head of Uplands at BASC:

“As a committed conservation organisation, we are taking progressive steps with our partners to oversee the continued recovery of hen harriers.

“Figures released by Natural England today show that collaborative effort resulted in 106 fledged hen harrier chicks in England this year – up from 80 last year“.

What “progressive steps” is BASC taking?

Oh, and those figures released by Natural England show that the small increase in Hen Harrier fledging rates are in spite of, not because of, any so-called ‘collaborative effort’ from the grouse shooting industry.

The data couldn’t be any clearer (see here).

17 months (& waiting) for NatureScot to make decision on General Licence restriction relating to ‘shooting & killing’ of sleeping Golden Eagle called Merrick

The Scottish Government’s nature advisory agency, NatureScot, has been now been procrastinating for 17 months on whether to impose a sanction on an estate in relation to the ‘shooting and killing’ of a sleeping Golden Eagle called Merrick.

Merrick was a young satellite-tagged Golden Eagle, released in south Scotland in 2022 as part of the South Scotland Golden Eagle Project, a lottery-funded conservation initiative which translocated young Golden Eagles from various sites across north Scotland to boost the tiny remnants of the Golden Eagle breeding population in south Scotland that had previously been decimated by illegal persecution and had become isolated by geographic barriers.

Camera trap photo of golden eagle Merrick in 2022, from South Scotland Golden Eagle Project

A year after her release, which had seen her fly around south Scotland and down into northern England and back, on 12 October 2023 Merrick’s satellite tag suddenly and inexplicably stopped transmitting from a roost site in the Moorfoot Hills in the Scottish Borders where she’d been sleeping overnight.

A project officer from the South Scotland Golden Eagle Project went to her last known location where he found Merrick’s feathers and blood directly below her roost tree. Police Scotland later determined from the evidence that she’d been ‘shot and killed’ and that someone had then ‘removed her body and destroyed her satellite tag’ (see here).

There was limited scope for anyone to be charged and prosecuted for killing this eagle unless someone in the know came forward with sufficient evidence to identify the individual(s) responsible. In addition, the prospect of an estate having its grouse-shooting licence withdrawn as a consequence of this crime was zero, given that this offence took place prior to the enactment of the Wildlife & Muirbun (Scotland) Act 2024.

That just left a General Licence restriction as a possible sanction. Not that I’d describe a GL restriction as an effective sanction, for reasons that have been explored previously on this blog (e.g. here and here). Nevertheless, it’s still something and, given the high-profile of Merrick’s death, you might think that making a decision on whether to impose a GL restriction would be a high priority for NatureScot.

I wrote about NatureScot’s procrastination on this case in August (see here), after receiving a response to a Freedom of Information request I’d lodged in June 2025. That response confirmed that NatureScot had received an information package from Police Scotland, on which it would base its GL restriction decision, in April 2024.

Seventeen months on and we’re now at the end of September 2025 and there’s still no sign of a decision from NatureScot.

What’s the hold up? Why hasn’t this decision been a priority for NatureScot?

What sort of message does NatureScot’s procrastination send out to others who might be thinking of ‘getting rid’ of a Golden Eagle in south Scotland, or any other part of Scotland for that matter?

The consequences became very clear yesterday when it was announced that two more satellite-tagged Golden Eagles from the South Scotland project had ‘disappeared’ in suspicious circumstances.

More detail on court ruling accepting admissibility of RSPB’s covert surveillance in prosecution of gamekeeper accused of conspiracy to kill a Hen Harrier

Earlier this month a judge ruled that covert video surveillance obtained by the RSPB is admissible evidence in the prosecution of gamekeeper Racster Dingwall, who has been charged in relation to the alleged shooting of a Hen Harrier on a grouse moor (Coniston & Grassington Estate) in the Yorkshire Dales National Park on 2nd October 2024.

Mr Dingwall pleaded not guilty to two charges at an earlier court hearing at Skipton Magistrates’ Court in May 2025. Those two charges are:

  1. Possession of an article capable of being used to commit a summary offence under Section 1 to 13 or 15 to 17 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act;
  2. Encourage/assist in the commission of a summary offence believing it will be committed.

The pre-trial hearing at York Magistrates’ Court on 9 September 2025 was specifically to hear legal argument about the admissibility of the RSPB’s video evidence, on which this prosecution is based.

I wrote briefly about the judge’s decision to accept the RSPB’s video evidence at the hearing on 9 September and said I would elaborate further when I had the time.

The following commentary seeks to provide more information about the judge’s decision and is based entirely on the notes I made during that hearing.

York Magistrates’ Court. Photo by Ruth Tingay

This pre-trial hearing was held before District Judge Adrian Lower. The involvement of a District Judge (professionally and legally qualified) is perhaps the reason why this case moved from Skipton Magistrates’ Court to York Magistrates’ Court.

District Judges don’t tend to sit in the smaller, or rural courts, but where a case is legally complex then there is often a request to move the case to another court to be heard before a District Judge rather than the lay magistrates (also known as Justices of the Peace) in a smaller court, who are volunteers and not legally trained/qualified to the extent of a District Judge.

Mr Dingwall and his solicitor did not attend the pre-trial hearing at York on 9 September 2025 – District Judge (DJ) Lower acknowledged that Mr Dingwall had been excused (the reason for his absence wasn’t given in open court).

The sole representative in court for Mr Dingwall was his barrister, Mr Justin Rouse KC. Long-term blog readers may recognise this name – Mr Rouse KC represented a gamekeeper from the Bleasdale Estate in Bowland, Lancashire in 2017-2018 who had been charged with nine offences relating to the alleged killing of two Peregrines on this grouse-shooting estate in 2016 in appalling circumstances. The prosecution had relied heavily on covert surveillance provided by the RSPB but the case collapsed when the presiding District Judge accepted Mr Rouse’s defence argument that the evidence should be ruled inadmissible (not necessarily on the strength of Mr Rouse’s arguments but more likely on the weakness of the prosecution lawyer, who was hopelessly underprepared for court- see here for detailed commentary on that case).

Appearing for the prosecution (CPS – Crown Prosecution Service) at York Magistrates’ Court on 9 September 2025 was Mr Jody Beaumont.

The hearing opened with DJ Lower stating that he’d read the submissions from both sides (about the admissibility of the RSPB’s video surveillance) and that he didn’t intend to hear a repetition of those submissions in court. He asked whether Mr Rouse KC and Mr Beaumont had anything new to add and both replied that they didn’t.

No doubt DJ Lower wanted to save valuable court time, but his decision not to have the legal arguments presented in open court makes it very difficult to provide an informed commentary on what happened next, because I don’t have the benefit of knowing the exact details of each side’s position.

Nevertheless, a general sense of the defence’s argument could be gleaned from some of the remarks made later by DJ Lower and it became apparent that there were two main issues to be discussed – the admissibility of the video evidence and an issue about disclosure.

The interpretation that follows is based on my understanding of what was said and should be viewed with appropriate caution given the circumstances just described.

It was clear that Mr Rouse KC for the defence had made an application to the court to exclude the RSPB’s video evidence (and thus have the case dismissed), under Section 78 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).

Section 78:

‘…..In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court, that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it’.

DJ Lower said that Mr Rouse’s view was that the RSPB should be viewed as a public authority in the way it gathered evidence (i.e. regulated by various legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998 & Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) which controls the manner of covert surveillance operations) – this is a very similar argument to the one Mr Rouse used in the Bleasdale case and, if accepted by the court in this latest case, would result in the RSPB’s evidence being ruled inadmissible because the RSPB hadn’t operated by the provisions required of a public authority in undertaking covert surveillance on private land (i.e. needing authorisation).

DJ Lower said he could not agree with the submission that the RSPB was a ‘public authority’. He said that the RSPB is arguably a substantial business, “a charity like no other“, but that although the RSPB was involved in the investigation, the material had been handed to North Yorkshire Police. He continued, “There is bound to be close coordination between the RSPB and North Yorkshire Police but that doesn’t mean that the RSPB becomes a public authority and is regulated as such by various legislation“.

DJ Lower agreed that there needs to be consideration about whether the RSPB should be considered a public authority but that this was not a decision a judge could make – it should be for Parliament to consider.

He said that the crux of the S.78 application was – regardless of whether the RSPB is or isn’t a public authority – would submission of the evidence have such an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings? He said this was a discretionary judgement for the court to make and in his judgement, “there would be no adverse affect“.

He continued: “The RSPB evidence has been subject to review by the CPS and it is their decision to prosecute or not. I cannot see how admitting the evidence gathered from the RSPB would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings. I am not prepared to dismiss the case“.

DJ Lower then referred to an alleged abuse of process, claimed by the defence (the details of this are unknown). DJ Lower asked Mr Rouse whether he had anything more to say on that allegation and Mr Rouse accepted that it had been addressed by the judge.

The legal argument then moved on to the disclosure issues (the details of which are unknown, which made the discussion confusing).

There seemed to be an argument about the defence not yet having had access to between 70-80 hours worth of RSPB video footage. Mr Beaumont (CPS) told the court that there was an ongoing discussion about how to manage the files and send them to the defence, but given that ‘senior management’ were involved, “this should be sorted out very soon“.

The defence was interested in a series of photographs taken by the RSPB between 16 September – 19 October 2024 consisting of “vehicles, houses, males, dogs and moorland“. Mr Rouse thought they may be capable of undermining the defence.

Mr Rouse said that because the RSPB investigators say they were acting on intelligence, the defence had asked for that intelligence material that led the RSPB to installing the surveillance equipment.

Mr Rouse continued, saying the defence’s principal concern about the disclosure of footage was the extent of “data breaches for the defendant and others recorded when they should not have been recorded” because “the RSPB were trespassing and the capture of data was unlawful“.

Mr Rouse also raised concerns about the police’s Section 19 (WCA) search of the moor. He asked how the police knew where to search, was the RSPB involved in that search, and if so, the identities of any RSPB staff involved should be disclosed. DJ Lower and Mr Beaumont agreed.

DJ Lower dismissed Mr Rouse’s concerns over privacy because any images captured by the RSPB could be “pixellated to protect the identity of members of the public“.

He suggested the discussion about disclosure should be continued between the defence and the prosecution, and that disclosure of all relevant evidence should take place within 28 days, and at the latest by 4pm on 7th October 2025.

DJ Lower set a two-day trial date (29th-30th January 2026, pending witness availability) at York Magistrates’ Court and said the case would be reserved for him.

He granted Mr Dingwall unconditional bail and asked his representative to ensure Mr Dingwall understood the consequences of non-attendance at court on 29 January 2026.

NB: Because criminal legal proceedings are live, the comment facility has been switched off.

Change of trial date for Scottish gamekeeper accused of killing a goshawk on a Perthshire shooting estate

The trial date has been changed for a Scottish gamekeeper who has been charged with killing a Goshawk on a Perthshire shooting estate last year.

Goshawk photo by Pete Walkden

The alleged incident took place on 12 February 2024 on a shooting estate near Blairgowrie.

Police Scotland, with the assistance of partners from the RSPB and Scottish SPCA, executed a search warrant on the estate on 29 February 2024, leading to the arrest of a 47-year-old gamekeeper and subsequent charge (see here).

The gamekeeper has pleaded not guilty and his trial was due to begin next Monday (22 September 2025).

It’s now been put back until November 2025.

NB: As this case is live, comments are turned off until legal proceedings have ended.

UPDATE 11 November 2025: Trial begins today for Scottish gamekeeper accused of killing a Goshawk on a Perthshire shooting estate (here)

Good news! Natural England pulls the plug on ‘reintroduction’ of Hen Harriers to southern England

It’s been a long time coming, but today Natural England has announced it is finally pulling the plug on its project to ‘reintroduce’ Hen Harriers to southern England.

It may sound odd that a pro-raptor conservationist sees this as good news, but I have long argued against this project, for a number of reasons, but predominantly because I saw it as an unhelpful distraction to tackling the real issue – that of the illegal killing of Hen Harriers on the grouse moors of northern Britain.

Hen Harrier by Pete Walkden

Natural England has been planning a so-called ‘reintroduction’ of hen harriers to southern England since 2016, as part of DEFRA’s ludicrous Hen Harrier Action Plan.

I think the proposed reintroduction project was initially supported by the pro-grouse shooting lobby because they thought that Hen Harriers could be removed from the northern grouse moors (under the equally ludicrous brood meddling scheme) and released into southern England, thus removing what they saw as a ‘problem species’ to the other end of the country, leaving them to get on with killing Red Grouse for fun (and money) without those pesky Hen Harriers ruining their sport (and profit).

An apt cartoon depicting what many of us saw as the intentions of the stakeholders in Defra’s Hen Harrier Action Plan. Cartoon by Gerard Hobley.

However, that plan was thwarted when it was pointed out that it would be a breach of international legislation to remove Hen Harriers from Special Protection Areas (SPAs) that had been designated specifically for Hen Harriers, and release them elsewhere.

I suspect that the pro-grouse shooting lobby continued to support the proposed ‘reintroduction’ into southern England because they knew that if even a handful of Hen Harriers were successful in the south, it would take the heat / attention off the continued illegal killing in the north.

We saw exactly this, when the brood meddling trial resulted in a few more pairs of Hen Harriers being allowed to breed – the ongoing illegal killing was simply brushed under the carpet by the grouse shooting lobby, and in many cases, outright denied using comically farcical logic (e.g. here) or grotesquely distorted reasoning (e.g. here).

But Hen Harriers don’t need to be ‘reintroduced’ to southern England, or anywhere else in the UK for that matter. They are perfectly capable of breeding in the wild and recolonising their former range, over a relatively short space of time, IF, and only IF, their survival isn’t curtailed by grouse moor gamekeepers shooting, trapping and poisoning them, pulling off their heads and legs, or stamping on their eggs and chicks.

Instead of wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds on this distraction project over many years, those funds could instead have been directed towards a focused enforcement plan to bring those criminals to justice.

For those interested, I’ve written extensively about this project since November 2016 and you can find links to the key blog posts here.

Here is today’s announcement from Natural England about the conclusion of the project:

NATURAL ENGLAND HEN HARRIER PROGRAMME – UPDATE TO SOUTHERN REINTRODUCTION PROJECT

By Sofía Muñoz, Senior Officer, Hen Harrier Southern Reintroduction

Background

The Hen Harrier Southern Reintroduction Project was set up in 2018 with the aim of establishing a wild, farmland-nesting population of hen harriers (Circus cyaneus) in southern England. 

The hen harrier is an iconic species and one of the UK’s rarest and most persecuted birds of prey. The combination of its beauty, charisma and rarity make this a highly cherished and valued bird. Hen harriers were once common across the UK but were driven to extinction across most of the British Isles during the 1800s. More recently, Natural England and many organisations have put great effort into helping them recolonise parts of Scotland and northern England. 

In England, their numbers are now estimated to have risen to 50 territorial pairs recorded in 2023, from four territorial pairs in 2016 – an increase of 1150%. Despite this increase in numbers, hen harriers remain at risk from illegal killing and disturbance, which is where human activities disrupt nesting sites, which can cause parent birds to abandon their nest and lead to failed eggs or chick deaths. 

Increasing hen harrier numbers is a particularly challenging task as they have a strong inclination to return to the same place they have hatched and fledged, meaning they don’t spread areas easily.  

Project timeline

In 2018, the Hen Harrier Southern Reintroduction project was conceived to encourage recolonisation of hen harriers further south in the UK. The project initially sought to translocate young hen harriers from continental Europe for release in the UK. However, collaboration between EU states and new importation rules for animals following the UK’s exit from the EU meant that translocation of young fledging birds became unfeasible due to extensive quarantine periods.   

Instead, a pioneering captive conservation breeding programme was developed which focussed on releasing offspring bred in the UK from adult birds imported from France and Spain. Beginning in late 2022, this ambitious programme hoped to boost the number of hen harriers in the UK with minimal impact on wild populations. The project sought to release a minimum of 100 juvenile hen harriers over a five-year period to ensure the best chances of success. 

In continental Europe, hen harriers nest on farmland which is directly comparable to much of the arable landscape across southern England. As part of the project, release pens were situated among an arable crop and these would be used to introduce chicks to the site from the captive breeding facility several weeks before fledging. It was hoped that this would enable them to familiarise themselves with the habitat and area around the release site, leading to them returning to breed in this same location in subsequent years. 

Latest situation

The third breeding season for the captive birds began in 2025. While the adult birds had not bred successfully in the first two years of the programme, advances in their breeding behaviour over the two years (2023; 2024) had been noted. This meant that the team were optimistic that that things were moving in the right direction to eventually produce chicks for release. However, to the team’s disappointment, the females unfortunately laid infertile eggs in 2025, meaning that no chicks would be released this year.  

Future of the project

The Southern Reintroduction project constitutes one of six components of the Joint action plan for the recovery of the English hen harrier population (2016) being delivered by Natural England, with the support of DEFRA. It has been running in parallel with other activities, such as the long-term monitoring of the species in northern England. 

Following a thorough review, it has become clear that Natural England is no longer in a position to provide the long-term funding and resource needed to continue delivering the Hen Harrier Southern Reintroduction project, despite the progress to date. The difficult decision has therefore been made to conclude this project.  

The welfare of the hen harriers held in captivity for the conservation breeding programme remains the priority for the project through its closing phase. A number of options exist for the birds, and these will be explored in full. As they are unsuitable for release into the wild, they will be transferred into the care of a suitable host organisation. Organisations will be considered suitable where they are able to ensure the ongoing welfare of the birds for the remainder of their natural lives. In addition, Natural England would not preclude continuation of the conservation breeding programme under the leadership of the chosen organisation if the priority of welfare is maintained.  

Informing future conservation

Knowledge acquired through the delivery of this project can help to inform other conservation projects and expand our understanding of hen harrier biology. We have, for instance, gained a deeper insight into the health, genetics, and migratory patterns of hen harriers. 

We would like to express our gratitude to all our partners, who have contributed their time, expertise, and commitment to this project over the years. 

ENDS

I’ve asked Natural England for a copy of what it calls its “thorough review” of this failed project.

I’ll report if/when Natural England sends it to me.

Don’t hold your breath though, I’m still waiting for NE to send me a copy of its Hen Harrier Brood Meddling Social Science report that I asked for in April 2025 (here).

Oh, and we’re STILL waiting for NE to release this year’s Hen Harrier breeding figures, AND to release the details of at least seven post-mortem reports on dead Hen Harriers, many of them dating back over a year (here). More commentary on that from me to come shortly…

Lincolnshire Police launch investigation as 7 dead birds of prey found in raptor persecution hotspot

From Lincolnshire Police (11 September 2025)

Officers from Lincolnshire Police Rural Crime Action Team are investigating after a number of dead birds of prey were found in the countryside between Belchford and West Ashby in recent months.

Four birds of prey were previously discovered in the area. As a result of these reports, we carried out a Section 19 search under the Wildlife and Countryside Act today. During this search, a further three dead birds of prey were located.

Also in attendance and assisting with our thanks were members of the RSPB and National Wildlife Crime Unit.

The search team included officers from Lincolnshire Police Rural Crime Action Team, the RSPB and the National Wildlife Crime Unit. Photo via Lincolnshire Police

All of the birds have been recovered and will be sent for specialist testing through the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme (WIIS) to establish the cause of death.

The Officer In Charge, Detective Constable Aaron Flint Lincolnshire Police’s Force Wildlife Crime officer, said:

“The discovery of multiple dead birds of prey in one locality is deeply concerning. We take all reports of suspected wildlife crime seriously, and our investigation is ongoing. Until we receive toxicology results, we cannot confirm the cause of death, but deliberate harm to birds of prey is a criminal offence and will be fully investigated.”

We are appealing for anyone who may have information which could assist our enquiries. Did you see anything suspicious in the area in recent weeks or months? Have you found any other dead wildlife, bait, or unusual items in the countryside locally?

If you can help, please contact Lincolnshire Police on 101, quoting crime number 25000511499, email aaron.flint@lincs.police.uk or alternatively, you can report anonymously via Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

ENDS

This isn’t the first police investigation into the illegal killing of birds of prey in this area.

In March this year, gamekeeper John Bryant 40, of West Ashby, Horncastle, Lincolnshire was convicted after a trial at Lincolnshire Magistrates’ Court of four offences in relation to an investigation into the illegal poisoning of a Red Kite and two Buzzards in the Belchford area (here).

Bryant was ordered to pay over £7,000 in fines (see here and here) and he also lost an appeal against the Police’s decision to revoke his shotgun and firearms certificates (here).

The discovery of seven more dead raptors in the same area this year is, as Detective Constable Aaron Flint says, ‘deeply concerning’.

Well done DC Aaron Flint and team for another successful multi-agency raid and a timely press release – this level of transparency is rare and I can think of a number of police forces who could learn lessons from this approach.

Judge rules RSPB covert video surveillance is admissible evidence in prosecution of gamekeeper Racster Dingwall

BREAKING NEWS….AND IT’S EXCELLENT NEWS!

The District Judge presiding at York Magistrates Court has today ruled that the RSPB’s covert video and audio surveillance is to be considered admissible evidence in relation to the prosecution of gamekeeper Racster Dingwall.

He did not accept the defence’s argument that inclusion of the covert surveillance would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings.

Mark Thomas and Ian Thomson from the RSPB’s Investigation Team attended York Magistrates Court today. Photo: Ruth Tingay

The case now moves to trial in January 2026 unless Mr Dingwall changes his not guilty plea in light of today’s ruling.

I’ll write a longer blog in the coming days, setting out the arguments and the Judge’s explanation for his decision.

In haste…

NB: Comments turned off as criminal proceedings are still live.

UPDATE 25 September 2025: More detail on court ruling accepting admissibility of RSPB’s covert surveillance in prosecution of gamekeeper accused of conspiracy to kill a Hen Harrier (here)

Gamekeeper Racster Dingwall back in court today for case relating to Hen Harrier shooting on a grouse moor in Yorkshire Dales National Park

Gamekeeper Racster Dingwall, 34, will appear at York Magistrates Court today for a hearing linked to his alleged involvement with the shooting of a Hen Harrier on a grouse moor (Coniston & Grassington Estate) in the Yorkshire Dales National Park on 2nd October 2024. He has pleaded not guilty.

This prosecution relies on the covert footage filmed by the RSPB’s Investigations team last autumn and later shown on Channel 4 News (here).

York Magistrates Court. Photo by Ruth Tingay

Dingwall faces two charges, according to the court notice:

  1. Possession of an article capable of being used to commit and summary offence under Section 1 to 13 or 15 to 17 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act;
  2. Encourage/assist in the commission of a summary offence believing it will be committed.

Today’s pre-trial hearing is expected to focus on legal arguments about the admissibility of the RSPB’s covert footage.

This was entirely to be expected. The defence team will be doing its best to have the evidence ruled inadmissible because without it, the prosecution will collapse.

We’ve been here many times before in similar cases. The last one I watched where the judge ruled the RSPB’s footage to be inadmissible was back in 2018, in relation to the illegal and brutal killing of two Peregrines on a grouse moor in Bowland. The legal arguments barely got going because the CPS lawyer was monumentally under-prepared, he hadn’t even watched the video footage in question, and was unable to answer the judge’s questions about it. The judge was really left with no other option than to rule the footage inadmissible and the case collapsed as a result (see here for more detailed blogs about that fiasco).

NB: Comments are closed until criminal proceedings have concluded.