‘Missing’ hen harrier Brian: official responses from Environment Secretary & Cairngorms National Park Authority

Two days after the news that young satellite-tagged hen harrier Brian has gone ‘missing’ in the Cairngorms National Park (see here), we now have official responses from Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham and from the CEO of the Cairngorms National Park Authority, Grant Moir.

brian-july16_jennyweston

Well done to journalist Christopher Foote (STV news) for publicising this incident (here) and for managing to get these official responses.

Let’s start with the response from the Environment Cabinet Secretary:

I take this issue very seriously and it shows the need to establish whether the disappearance of these birds is indicative of criminal activity. 

It is clearly suspicious, but we must ensure that a robust statistical analysis of all the data from over 200 tagged birds supports any conclusion. 

I will consider what action to take in the light of the full evidence, and I am not ruling out any options.”

Well, at least she didn’t trot out the usual Ministerial line that we’ve heard repeatedly from successive Environment Ministers over a period of several years (e.g. “I’m very disappointed” and “I will not hesitate to bring in further measures if they are deemed necessary“). And at least she has acknowledged this incident, which is better than remaining silent about it. But other than that, this is just yet another holding statement.

We’re partly sympathetic to her position. She has recently instructed a review of raptor satellite tag data (which we fully support) but that review is not expected to be finished until March 2017. That six month delay is not her fault, and nor is it the fault of the review’s authors. They need to conduct a thorough interrogation and analysis of the data and their methods will need to stand up to potential legal scrutiny depending on the Secretary’s subsequent decision to act. We’re well aware (as Roseanna will be) that the well-financed grouse shooting industry will take whatever legal action it can to prevent any Governmental challenge to its current practices, so this review does have to be robust and that will, inevitably, take time. On that basis, a holding statement at this stage is probably the best we could expect.

However, we’re also partly unsympathetic to Roseanna’s position. As we’ve said before, many, many, times, the evidence of criminal activity on grouse moors is already overwhelming and has been available for several decades. It has built and built and built. We don’t need to wait for yet another study to reach the same conclusion. It’s hugely frustrating that we have to put up with the constant stalling tactics from the Government before any action is taken. Again, Roseanna Cunningham isn’t entirely responsible for the stalling – every other Environment Minister has played their part in that, and some more than others – but eventually, a point is reached where the stalling and inaction is no longer tolerable.

Let’s now look at the statement from Grant Moir, CEO of the Cairngorms National Park Authority:

We are working with Police Scotland, SNH and Scottish Government to look at next steps around wildlife crime in the Cairngorms National Park.”

Really, Grant? 48 hours of thinking time and that’s the best you can offer? You needn’t have bothered. No, really, you needn’t have bothered.

Photograph of hen harrier Brian by Jenny Weston

Heads up for hen harriers? How about heads in the sand?

Last week we were treated to yet another ‘partnership-working’ charade, this time under the guise of PAW Scotland’s ‘Heads up for Hen Harriers’ project.

This project was established in 2013. It aims to ‘better understand the threats facing Scotland’s hen harriers –and ultimately promote recovery of the species – by working in partnership with land managers‘ (see here). The idea is that nobody knows why hen harrier nests are failing in certain areas (yes, really!) but by putting cameras on nests we might learn more about these ‘mystery issues’.

The whole project has been a farce right from the start (we blogged about it here), although, to be fair, it does seem that asking the public for hen harrier sightings has been fruitful in one or two cases. But the part of the project that relies on nest camera evidence is just absurd. It’s going to lead to a huge sampling bias because these cameras are only placed at nest sites with the landowner’s permission. Nobody in their right mind is going to illegally persecute those nesting hen harriers or their chicks with a camera pointing right at them, thus, any subsequent nesting failures documented by the project will be the result of natural causes, not illegal ones, allowing the grouse moor owners to proclaim that illegal persecution isn’t a problem.

Last year we criticised the project (here) because nest cameras were not deployed on any intensively driven grouse moors. Tim (Kim) Baynes, a spokesman for Scottish Land & Estates, disingenuously used those 2015 results (from non-driven grouse moors) to claim that nest failures ‘on grouse moors’ that year were due to the weather and fox predation. We argued that it was pointless, propaganda-fuelling bollocks to place cameras on nest sites in areas where persecution isn’t an issue (walked-up grouse moors) and then use those results to claim that persecution isn’t an issue on driven grouse moors.

Much the same has happened this year. In last week’s media releases (SNH press release here; Landward programme here [available for 27 days]; BBC news here [which is basically a shortened version of the Landward programme]), we were told that there was an increase in project uptake from estates this year (five estates in 2015, 13 this year) and this was seen as huge progress. However, only three estates had successful nests and none of those estates were intensively managed driven grouse moors. Well, one of them was Langholm and as they’re still not shooting grouse there and still not illegally killing hen harriers there, it can hardly be seen to be representative of driven grouse moors.

What was new this year was that some of those 13 signed-up estates ARE intensively managed driven grouse moors – notably some in the Angus Glens and further north in Aberdeenshire. But none of them had breeding hen harriers this year so they didn’t really actively ‘take part’ in the project, as is being claimed. It’s all very well signing up for the project and saying you’re part of it and how much you love hen harriers and want to understand what the issues are; it’s a lot like the grouse moor owners in northern England who claim to have signed up to DEFRA’s Hen Harrier Inaction Plan – it sounds great but has resulted in exactly zero breeding hen harriers on any driven grouse moors in England this year. It’s an easy PR stunt for these estates to pull but when hen harriers haven’t bred in these areas for ten years (Angus Glens – see here) or the hen harrier population has suffered a catastrophic population decline thanks to illegal persecution (Aberdeenshire  -see here), and when you’re still deploying gas guns, banger ropes, and inflatable screeching scarecrows at the critical breeding time for hen harriers, it’s probably a safe bet that you’re not going to have breeding hen harriers this year but hey, you can still say you’re engaged in ‘partnership-working’ and thus score some brownie points.

Of the nests that were successful this year, much has been made of the weather and of fox predation. Again, this is all just another opportunity to hide the known impact of illegal persecution. Yes, weather will affect productivity (as it can for most species) and yes, natural predation will occur (as it does in any ecosystem), but so what? We all know these natural causes of nest failure will occur in places, but we also know that illegal persecution has been identified as the main threat to hen harriers on driven grouse moors across the UK.

These estates, and SNH, need to stop pretending otherwise.

UPDATE 3 October 2016: Heads up for Hen Harriers: the ‘partnership-working’ sham (here)

Too embarrassing for words

Following this morning’s news that satellite-tagged hen harrier Brian has ‘disappeared’ in the Cairngorms National Park just a few weeks after fledging (see here), we’ve been waiting to see what the Environment Secretary and the Cairngorms National Park Authority had to say about it, and more importantly, what they intended to do about it.

This won’t take long……they’ve said absolutely nothing at all.

All as silent as Brian’s satellite tag.

Nothing on the CNPA news website, nothing on their twitter feed, nothing on the PAW Scotland website, and nothing on the Environment Secretary’s twitter feed.

Sorry Brian, you’re just too embarrassing for words.

brian-july16_jennyweston

UPDATE 29 September 2016: Official response from Environment Secretary and CEO of Cairngorms National Park Authority (here)

Satellite-tagged hen harrier ‘disappears’ in Cairngorms National Park

Another of this year’s hen harrier chicks has ‘disappeared’ just a few weeks after fledging, this time in the Cairngorms National Park.

This one was called Brian, after raptor worker Brian Etheridge, and he had hatched in a nest in Perthshire, within the National Park. After fledging, he stayed within the Park boundary until his signal, ‘suddenly and without warning‘, stopped abruptly on 22 August 2016 a few miles from Kingussie. Searches for his body and tag proved fruitless. The details of Brian’s short life can be read here on the RSPB Skydancer blog.

kingussie

brian-july16_jennyweston

This is a photo of Brian taken at the nest in July with his newly-fitted satellite tag (photo by Jenny Weston).

Brian is the second of this year’s cohort to suddenly ‘disappear’ – in early August, hen harrier Elwood also vanished, in the grouse moor ridden Monadhliath mountains just to the NW of the Park (see here).

The area around Kingussie is also ridden with driven grouse moors. In fact, it wasn’t far from here where hen harrier Lad’s corpse was found in September 2015, suspected shot (see here).

So what now? A few weeks ago, following the ‘disappearance’ of eight satellite-tagged golden eagles, as well as hen harrier Elwood, in the Monadhliaths, Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham announced a review of the sat tag data of three raptor species – golden eagle, hen harrier, red kite – to ‘look for patterns of suspicious activity‘ (see here). That review is very welcome but the team working on the analysis is not expected to report until March 2017 at the earliest. That’s six months away. And then there’ll be further delays as the Government digests the review’s findings and thinks about how to respond, or not.

And to be frank, we don’t need to wait for the review to detect ‘patterns of suspicious activity’ – the pattern of illegal persecution has been known for years. The cause of these raptor disappearances is not unreliable sat tags (94% reliability in a recent study of Montagu’s harriers – see here), nor is it non-existent wind farms (see here), nor is it ‘bird activists’ killing the birds to smear the grouse shooting industry (see here).

We’ve said this before and we’ll say it again. Endless peer-reviewed scientific papers and government reports on golden eagles, hen harriers, red kites and peregrines have unequivocally linked the illegal killing of these raptors with intensively-managed driven grouse moors. Why pretend nobody knows what’s going on?

The ‘disappearance’ of Brian is bad enough, but for this ‘disappearance’ to take place in the Cairngorms National Park just adds to the ever-increasing catalogue of shame that the Park Authority needs to address. Cue expressions of ‘disappointment’ and more stalling tactics (futile partnership-working and discussions) from the CNPA.

Here’s that catalogue of shame, in full:

2003

Apr: 3 x poisoned buzzards (Carbofuran) + 2 grey partridge baits. Kingussie, CNP

Jun: Attempted shooting of a hen harrier. Crannoch, CNP

2004

May: 1 x poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran). Cuaich, CNP

Nov: 1 x poisoned red kite (Carbofuran). Cromdale, CNP

Dec: 1 x poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran). Cromdale, CNP

2005

Feb: 1 x poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran). Cromdale, CNP

Feb: 1 x poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran). Cromdale, CNP

Mar: 3 x poisoned buzzards, 1 x poisoned raven (Carbofuran). Crathie, CNP

2006

Jan: 1 x poisoned raven (Carbofuran). Dulnain Bridge, CNP

May: 1 x poisoned raven (Mevinphos). Grantown-on-Spey, CNP

May: 1 x poisoned golden eagle (Carbofuran). Morven [corbett], CNP

May: 1 x poisoned raven + 1 x poisoned common gull (Aldicarb) + egg bait. Glenbuchat, CNP

May: egg bait (Aldicarb). Glenbuchat, CNP

Jun: 1 x poisoned golden eagle (Carbofuran). Glenfeshie, CNP

2007

Jan: 1 x poisoned red kite (Carbofuran). Glenshee, CNP

Apr: Illegally set spring trap. Grantown-on-Spey, CNP

May: Pole trap. Grantown-on-Spey, CNP

May: 1 x poisoned red kite (Carbofuran). Tomintoul, CNP

May: Illegally set spring trap. Grantown-on-Spey, CNP

Jun: 1 x poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran) + rabbit & hare baits. Grantown-on-Spey, CNP

Jun: 1 x poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran) + rabbit bait. Grantown-on-Spey, CNP

Jul: 1 x poisoned raven (Carbofuran). Ballater, CNP

Sep: 1 x shot buzzard. Newtonmore, CNP

Sep: 1 x shot buzzard. Grantown-on-Spey, CNP

Dec: 1 x poisoned buzzard (Alphachloralose). Grantown-on-Spey, CNP

Dec: 1 x poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran) + rabbit bait. Grantown-on-Spey, CNP

2008

Jan: 1 x poisoned buzzard (Alphachloralose). Nr Grantown-on-Spey, CNP

Mar: 1 x poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran). Nr Grantown-on-Spey, CNP

Dec: 1 x poisoned buzzard (Alphachloralose). Nr Grantown-on-Spey, CNP

2009

May: 2 x poisoned ravens (Mevinphos). Delnabo, CNP

Jun: rabbit bait (Mevinphos). nr Tomintoul, CNP

Jun: 1 x shot buzzard. Nr Strathdon, CNP

Jun: 1 x illegal crow trap. Nr Tomintoul, CNP

2010

Apr: Pole trap. Nr Dalwhinnie, CNP

Jun: 1 x pole-trapped goshawk. Nr Dalwhinnie, CNP

Jun: Illegally set spring trap on tree stump. Nr Dalwhinnie, CNP

Sep: 2 x poisoned buzzards (Carbofuran) + rabbit bait. Glenlochy, CNP

Oct: 2 x poisoned buzzards (Carbofuran) + rabbit bait. Nr Boat of Garten, CNP

2011

Jan: 1 x shot buzzard. Nr Bridge of Brown, CNP

Mar: 1 x poisoned golden eagle (Carbofuran). Glenbuchat, CNP

Apr: 1 x poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran & Aldicarb). Nr Bridge of Brown, CNP

May:  1 x poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran) + rabbit bait. Glenbuchat, CNP

May: 1 x shot short-eared owl, found stuffed under rock. Glenbuchat, CNP

Jun: 1 x shot peregrine. Pass of Ballater, CNP

Aug: grouse bait (Aldicarb). Glenlochy, CNP

Sep: Satellite-tagged golden eagle ‘disappears’. Nr Strathdon, CNP

Nov: Satellite-tagged golden eagle ‘disappears’. Nr Strathdon, CNP

2012

Apr: 1 x shot short-eared owl. Nr Grantown-on-Spey, CNP

Apr: Peregrine nest site burnt out. Glenshee, CNP

May: Buzzard nest shot out. Nr Ballater, CNP

2013

Jan: White-tailed eagle nest tree felled. Invermark, CNP

May: 1 x shot hen harrier. Glen Gairn, CNP

May: Satellite-tagged golden eagle ‘disappears’. Glenbuchat, CNP

2014

Apr: Satellite-tagged white-tailed eagle ‘disappears’. Glenbuchat, CNP

May: Armed masked men shoot out a goshawk nest. Glen Nochty, CNP

2015

Sep: Satellite-tagged hen harrier ‘Lad’ found dead, suspected shot. Newtonmore, CNP.

2016

May: 1 x shot goshawk. Strathdon, CNP

Jun: Illegally set spring traps. Invercauld, CNP

Aug: Satellite-tagged hen harrier ‘Brian’ ‘disappears’, near Kingussie, CNP

In addition to the above list, two recent scientific publications have documented the long-term decline of breeding peregrines on grouse moors in the eastern side of the National Park (see here) and the catastrophic decline of breeding hen harriers, also on grouse moors in the eastern side of the Park (see here).

And let’s not forget the on-going massacre of mountain hares, taking place annually within the boundary of the National Park (e.g. see here, here).

Let’s see how the Environment Secretary and the Cairngorms National Park Authority respond this time. We’ll add links to any statements if/when they appear throughout the day.

UPDATE 18.40 hrs: Too embarrassing for words (here)

UPDATE 29 September 2016: Official responses from Environment Secretary and Cairngorms National Park Authority (here)

BBC Trust ruling: Chris Packham did not breach guidelines

A year ago, Tim Bonner, Chief Exec of the Countryside Alliance complained to the BBC (see here) about Chris Packham describing various ‘countryside’ organisations as “the nasty brigade” and accused him of other alleged breaches of the BBC’s editorial code.

Earlier this summer, just as the campaign to ban driven grouse shooting was gaining serious momentum, poor Timmy was furious to learn that the BBC Trust would not publish its decision until September. The Countryside Alliance clearly hoped that Chris’s participation in the highly successful ban driven grouse shooting campaign could be curtailed (see here) so they stamped their feet and pressed the BBC Trust to publish its decision without delay.

The BBC Trust gave the Countryside Alliance a metaphorical middle finger and stood firm. Today, the Trust has published its decision: Chris Packham did not breach any BBC guidelines – read the Trust’s full findings here: bbc-trust-ruling-on-chris-packham

v happy Copy

Meanwhile, as the appropriately named nasty brigade have been baying (braying?) for his blood, Chris has remained focused on more important issues. He’s just launched a new e-petition calling for a moratorium on shooting woodcock, snipe and golden plover until the cause of their population declines have been determined by independent scientific assessment – you can sign his petition here.

Oh, and one last thing. A few months ago, Chris was asked to choose a name for one of this year’s satellite tagged hen harriers as part of the Lush Skydancer Bathbomb campaign. Anyone recall the name he chose? Watch the video here and listen carefully! [Cue outraged complaint to the BBC….]

Don’t worry Countryside Alliance, next year, assuming there are some hen harrier chicks around to satellite tag, one can be called Olive and another Ridley, in honour of those marine turtles you know so much about.

Satellite tag reliability: compelling evidence from Montagu’s Harrier study

Satellite-tagged hen harriers regularly ‘disappear’ in the UK uplands, mostly in areas managed as driven grouse moors. Indeed, according to data from Natural England, of 47 hen harriers that were satellite-tagged between 2007-2014, a staggering 78.7% were listed as ‘missing’ (see here). That means a significant and suspiciously high proportion (37 tagged hen harriers) vanished without trace.

And of course it’s not just hen harriers. Last month we learned that eight satellite-tagged golden eagles had ‘disappeared’ on grouse moors in the Monadhliath mountains (see here).

Various unsubstantiated ‘explanations’ for these ‘disappearances’ are routinely trotted out by the persecution apologists, including claims that ‘bird activists’ are killing the birds to smear the grouse shooting industry (here) or that the birds have been killed at windfarms and their bodies removed to avert bad publicity….quite plausible until we discovered that the majority of the windfarms blamed for the disappearance of eight golden eagles hadn’t actually been built (see here).

And then we get the old familiar excuse that it must have been a technical failure with the satellite tag. Again, quite plausible if it happened every so often, but not if it’s happening with the frequency with which the grouse-shooting industry claims. Last month, the credibility of this excuse was blown apart when the Scottish Countryside Alliance published the following statement in response to the news about the eight ‘missing’ sat tagged golden eagles:

Contrary to claims that transmitters are reliable, research papers published in 2013 studied three decades of wildlife radio telemetry and concluded that failure rates could be as high as 49%“.

It turned out that the SCA was disingenuously using data from satellite-tagged Olive Ridley turtles in India where problems with a saltwater switch on the tag is a known and on-going issue and so the SCA’s claim of a 49% failure rate was actually based on a totally irrelevant study and as such was highly misleading (see here). You can make up your own minds about whether this was a case of the SCA’s inability to interpret simple scientific data or whether it was deliberate propaganda pushed out to divert attention from illegal killing in the hope that nobody would check the details.

Wouldn’t it be great if, instead of relying on misrepresentative data from marine turtles in the Indian Ocean, there was a relatively comparative study of satellite tag reliability on, say, a harrier species in western Europe.

Oh, hang on, there is!

Have a look at this blog that has just been published on the RSPB’s website. It’s written by Dr Raymond Klaassen of the Dutch Montagu’s Harrier Foundation. Raymond and his colleagues have been satellite-tagging Montagu’s harriers (67 of them since 2006), using the same make and model as the sat tags being fitted to hen harriers in the UK.

raymond-klaassen-monty-by-mark-thomas

So what does Raymond say about satellite tag reliability in his study? Amongst other things, he says this:

Technical failures generally are rare. We have recorded a few throughout the years (6% of all cases), however failures have always been preceded by irregular transmission periods and, most importantly, a drop in battery voltage (another parameter monitored by the transmitter). This makes it relatively straightforward to distinguish between a likely mortality event and a likely transmitter failure“.

Wow. A six per cent technical failure rate over a ten year period. It turns out that these harrier satellite tags are actually highly reliable. Who knew? Compare that six per cent failure rate with the 78.7% rate of ‘disappearing’ hen harriers over a seven year period, supposedly the victims of satellite tag ‘technical failures’.

We trust this compelling evidence of satellite tag reliability will be included in the Scottish Government’s review of satellite tag data from three raptor species that routinely ‘disappear’ on grouse moors across Scotland (see here).

Photo of Raymond with a satellite-tagged Montagu’s harrier by Mark Thomas.

An open letter to Philip Merricks

rod-copy

There’s not much else to say, is there?

This letter was written before Philip’s incoherent presentation at the Sheffield raptor conference (here) and before Philip moved his, er, “immovable conditions” for participating in DEFRA’s Hen Harrier brood meddling plan (see here).

The forthcoming Hawk & Owl Trust AGM should be interesting….

Illegal raptor killing has to stop, says Angela Smith MP

Here’s another transcript from last week’s Sheffield conference on raptors. This time we feature the deeply personal yet unflinchingly resolute presentation given by Angela Smith MP (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge).

Angela is no stranger to the subject of illegal raptor killing on grouse moors. You may remember, way back in 2011, she tabled a Parliamentary question asking whether it was time for England to follow Scotland’s lead and introduce vicarious liability to deal with criminal gamekeepers. The response from Richard Benyon, the then DEFRA minister who also just happened to own a grouse moor, is now legendary (see here).

Here’s what Angela had to say in Sheffield (we’ve excluded some complimentary, but irrelevant here, introductory blurb):

Now I want to start with a comment about my own constituency. Although I’m a Sheffield/Barnsley MP I think that most people in the UK would think that makes me a very urban MP but I’m not. I represent the urban parts of Sheffield and also Barnsley, part of my constituency going right out in to the Peak District so it is actually very rural; 32% of the constituency is in the National Park.

And I’ve walked the hills in my area for many years, in fact going back well well before I became an MP and I love those moors with a passion. Langsett, Midhope and Broomhead, in fact I’ll be out on Langsett on Sunday morning, and it’s partly because I don’t come across, if you don’t mind me saying this, the lycra-clad brigade in large numbers, in that part of the peak. It’s truly a place where one can lose oneself and have a sense of being at one with nature.

But the simple and stark fact is that neither do I see hen harriers on those moors, or even peregrine falcons. I’ve seen just one peregrine falcon in fact in recent years and that was back in the summer of 2013, soaring over Broomhead Reservoir. In fact I think the only known site, I may be wrong on this, for peregrine falcons breeding near Sheffield is the city centre, and that, I think, is indicative of where we are. And it should concentrate our minds more than a little.

Grouse moors aplenty in my constituency, but no hen harriers. No stable populations of other birds of prey. That’s one of the reasons why I feel so passionately about this issue. Not only am I a member of the RSPB, and have been for a long time, but I also know there is something wrong with our moorland habitats. There is something essential missing; healthy populations of our wonderful raptors.

Now, I welcome this conference and hope that it can make a contribution to resolving the deeply embedded conflict that characterises the debate about how best to manage our moorlands. Because one thing I am certain of – for as long as this conflict remains unresolved, the number one loser is the hen harrier, which is in danger of disappearing altogether from our wonderful uplands if we do not sit up and get on with the job of sorting out this problem.

Over the next two days, you will hear a range of presentations from speakers with a wide range of perspectives and who represent different parts of the UK – Scotland, the Peak District and Bowland, for example. The discussions will be detailed and complex, and so they should be. This is not a black and white problem, easily resolved.

Let me just throw in a few, brief comments about what I see as the politics of this debate.

First of all, let’s remember politics is the art of the possible, someone should try telling that to my party, and it is always preferable to act on the basis of consensus and partnership. So, ideally, the best way forward, as far as our moorlands are concerned, would be to see all interested parties agreeing principles and working through differences to establish moorland management plans that balance sporting interests with the need to restore and maintain a healthy habitat, including of course stable and sustainable populations of raptors.

Such plans would vary, of course, because our uplands are themselves wonderfully diverse. The grouse moors in my constituency are part of our precious Peak District blanket bog and are badly degraded, in fact I think it’s amongst the most badly degraded in Europe. That does not mean other parts of our moorland landscape across the UK are the same. Each upland habitat needs its own plan, tailored to its own precious ecology.

But it has to be said that the chances of delivering success with this voluntary approach look increasingly remote. Despite the partnership work still ongoing in places like the Dark Peak, which I know you’re going to hear about later, the events of this summer suggest that relationships between the different parties involved are becoming even more difficult.

The withdrawal of the RSPB in particular from the Hen Harrier Action Plan is indicative and is a consequence of what the charity sees as a failure on the part of the landowners and the shooting interests to combat effectively the illegality that tarnishes the reputation of those who do want to enjoy their sport responsibly.

And for a politician this is very depressing news, for although there are legislative options available to us, the irony is that they become necessary or even more critically necessary at that point when conflict has deepened and become more firmly entrenched.

The first of these legislative options, banning driven grouse shooting, presents an apparently straight forward solution but runs the risk of alienating landowners, who in the final analysis maintain and manage our moorland areas and provide employment for many people living in rural areas. It may well also do little to prevent further persecution – there is no guarantee that making grouse shooting illegal will necessarily lead to a cessation of the illegal killing of birds of prey.

Licensing is the other option available. Now, I understand that for the grouse shooting community this is also an unpalatable option and in many ways I would join with those that say that a voluntary, partnership based approach is preferable.

But let me also say this – the licensing option has to remain on the table. If this conflict continues and if raptors continue to be persecuted, it will have to be considered. Politicians will not be able to stand aside and allow hen harriers, for instance, to disappear from our uplands altogether

Some of you may say, that’s an open invitation to charities like the RSPB in particular not to cooperate with a voluntary approach. But I say this in response. The challenge is clear now. For those who want a voluntary approach to work, and I still do, and I think most politicians would still prefer it, the precursor to progress is that the illegal killing has to stop. It just has to stop.

And, on that basis, all parties, including the RSPB, will have a duty to work together to find a way of delivering healthy, moorland habitats that can sustain the sport of shooting that so many people here today love so much.

So I, over the years, have followed this debate, it particularly impacts on my constituency, and I think we are rapidly getting to what, if you don’t mind me using a cliché, is the last chance saloon, and I think it’s critically important that we maintain every option and keep every option on the table. But as I said before, this killing has to stop.

Enjoy the conference; I can stay for only this morning, but I wish you every success in at least taking a few small steps in the right direction.

END

Ironically, just two days before she gave this presentation, a young peregrine was found critically injured next to a grouse moor in the Peak District National Park. It had been shot. It didn’t survive (see here).

Philip Merricks moves his “immoveable conditions”

Back in June, we blogged about the Hawk & Owl Trust’s supposed “immoveable provisos and conditions” that had been set, by them, as part of their agreement for taking part in DEFRA’s brood meddling plan (see here).

Here they are, as a reminder:

HOT2

We were interested to hear whether the setting of three illegal pole traps on the Mossdale Estate grouse moor would cause the Hawk & Owl Trust to pull out of the brood meddling scheme because it seemed that one of their “immoveable provisos and conditions” had been broken. The Hawk & Owl Trust didn’t respond.

But now they have, in a comment written by Philip Merricks (Hawk & Owl Trust Chair) on Mark Avery’s blog today (see here), and the response is astonishing.

merricks-response

According to Philip, those “immovable conditions” only apply “when all actions of the DEFRA Hen Harrier Recovery Plan are underway“. As two elements of the Plan have yet to begin (brood meddling and the southern reintroduction), apparently the “immovable conditions” are not yet applicable.

But that’s not what the Hawk & Owl Trust said in their original statement about those “immoveable conditions“. Have another look at the Hawk & Owl Trust’s original statement (top image above). The first line reads:

‘Before agreeing to talk with DEFRA about the details of a trial, the Trust created three immoveable provisos and conditions for taking part in a brood management scheme trial’.

What a total bloody cop out! Philip has demonstrated that the Hawk & Owl Trust’s intentions are just as disingenuous as those claimed by the grouse-shooting industry at the beginning of the year when they professed tolerance to a limited number of hen harriers on their moors. Philip knows and accepts that since the DEFRA plan was launched in January 2016 (here), illegal hen harrier persecution has taken place – he acknowledged this throughout his presentation in Sheffield at the weekend (see here), and yet here he is, suggesting that this year’s persecution incidents ‘don’t count’ because the full plan has yet to be launched.

This isn’t conflict resolution, this is the Hawk & Owl Trust acting as apologists for an industry which relies upon the illegal killing of birds of prey. It’s shameful.

What Philip Merricks said at the Sheffield conference

There was a conference in Sheffield last Friday and Saturday: ‘Raptors, Uplands & Peatlands – Conservation, Land Management & Issues’. Mark Avery has written a blog giving an overview of his impressions (here).

Raptor conference poster

We will be publishing a selection of transcripts from this conference and here is the first of those. Note, this is NOT a parody. You’ll probably need to remind yourself of that if you manage to reach the end.

Philip Merricks, Chair of the Hawk & Owl Trust:The Hawk & Owl Trust’s involvement in the Hen Harrier Recovery Action Plan‘.

It’s very good to be at Sheffield. Our daughter spent four happy years here at uni and she very much enjoyed it and got to know and love the moors, and when I took her to meet her brother at another university, ultimately, you know, she was always thought to be brighter than him, after a day of going around his college she said, walking back to the parking, she said: ‘Dad, why do I want to have to come here and do two essays a week when I can go to Sheffield and have a real life?’. But to be serious she got to know the moors and love the moors and now she and her husband are managing a nature reserve in Kent, a long way from the moors, below sea level in Kent, but you know, she has many, many happy, well many happy years out on the moors.

Now I completely agree with everything that Angela Smith said. I don’t know her, but I thought that as local MP everything she said made a huge, huge amount of sense. And it’s a real, real disgrace, I mean a real disgrace that she and other people, Sheffield people, can’t see hen harriers, peregrines and everything else on those moors, it really is an utter, utter disgrace. She made a very good point that to resolve this issue we should remember that politics is the art of the possible, and that it’s always preferable to act on the basis of consensus and partnership, and that’s driven me all of my life and hopefully it drives the Hawk & Owl Trust. Just remember that she said that politics is the art of the possible.

Quick introduction about myself. I manage two National Nature Reserves, Elmley and Swale, and two former RSPB reserves, all below sea level, all in Kent, and the two National Nature Reserves on the Sheppey marshes, they now hold the largest concentration of breeding raptors, breeding birds of prey, in south east England, something we’re really, really pleased about, and also really large numbers of marsh harriers, which I’m sure you will all know are rarer than hen harriers. And as Ian [Ed: Professor Ian Rotherham, Sheffield Hallam University] said were incredibly rare when he was as a student or when he was a young lecturer many years ago. And then 40 miles south in Kent we manage the Romney Marsh reserve, which similarly holds, I’m told, the largest number of birds of prey on the south coast, or south east coast.

I come from a land management background, as you can understand, I’m passionately interested in management for nature conservation and I’m passionately interested in getting an understanding of land management and getting managers to understand, I mean are there any land managers, grouse moor managers in the audience? Does anybody have responsibility for managing grouse? Yeah brilliant, so there’s one guy, who, well I, I’m very keen on talking to land managers to get them to manage their land, you know, for conservation. Whether it’s, and of course I’m a long way away from the moors, but quite clearly, at the end of the, pragmatic point, at the end of the day the overwhelming majority of countryside is managed by farmers and landowners, and that’s a crucial point.

And another introduction point, I should say, I don’t shoot and I never have shot, for those that like to write about me, I’ll just repeat that, I don’t shoot and I never have shot. Ok. But I Chair the Hawk & Owl Trust, I served as a trustee over 20 years ago, a couple of terms which was six years and then the Chairman died, I was no more than an ordinary member then and I was asked to see if I would come back and Chair, which I did, and quite clearly the Hawk & Owl Trust is a pragmatic organisation and it works, its strap line is ‘Working for wild birds of prey and their habitats’. And as you might imagine, the overwhelming majority of wild birds of prey are on land managed by, well by farmers and landowners and of course on the moors and by gamekeepers. So that’s pretty important point, you know, if we’re going to work with those who manage the habitats throughout most of the UK we have to manage, we have to work with farmers and landowners and up here on the moors we have to work with the gamekeepers again.

And this is where we come to the crux of the problem for this whole conference. The Hawk & Owl Trust is more than happy to be working with those who manage the habitats, farmers and landowners, we do that every day, sometimes I do it all day, but it’s not so easy to do it with gamekeepers when it’s pretty bloody clear that a number of them are continuing to break the law, and persecuting these birds, especially hen harriers. So I’ll just repeat that, it really is a despicable crime and something that’s been going on for far too long, and, which we’ve heard today, is continuing. On that line, it’s going on, I recently called in to see a great guy, a former RSPB Chairman, former RSPB Gold medallist, one of the great guys, and he gave me, he showed me, this invitation to a press release, and it just shows that this is something, I think then he was the incoming Chairman of the Council, became Chairman of the RSPB, and it just shows, 1971, you can possibly see that closer I think, 1971 the RSPB were, basically this is staff and council members, were giving a press conference on the persecution of birds of prey. And I mean clearly they were raising awareness of it then and they’re raising awareness of it now, so I’m just showing this is nothing new. What I do like about that, the way the RSPB operated, they stopped at 12.15 for cocktails. Can you see that at the bottom there? I’m sure things go on like that exactly the same way at The Lodge today.

Right. But I said, and I’ll put this up, the position is no damn different or better today. And one of the dreadful examples we’ve seen and you’ve all heard about is the setting of a pole trap on the Mossdale grouse moor. And that is appalling. As soon as I heard about that or was told about it, I went up to Mossdale because I’m always someone who likes to see things at first hand. I’ve got to the age now where actually, I actually want to see things and talk to people about it first hand. Has anybody been to Mossdale by the way? Brilliant, some of you have.I’ve talked to the head gamekeeper, I’ve talked to the owner, has anybody done that? A couple anyway. And I, you know, it was quite appalling, you know, it’s easier in some ways for me to give them a piece of my mind because I can almost speak landowner to landowner, although, you know, they might well be up in, you know, up on the moors and I’m down below sea level but I mean the principle is just the same. It is quite a disgusting incident, despicable act. And you know, I’m sure you’re all aware of it, this is a thing on a post, it holds birds by the legs until they die. I mean, and it was done by an untrained, unsupervised twenty-something year old, 22 year old, and it was a real, real dereliction of management, of supervision, and of training, absolutely appalling. And you know, that is lack of those, supervision and management and training by the head keeper and ultimately by the landowner. And, you know, I, it’s relatively easy for me, landowner to landowner, to say, ‘Look you bloody fool, you, you are, well, not just breaking the law but you’re letting all of us down whether we’re in below sea level in Kent or whether you’re up here’. And I, I, think, you know, perhaps things like that are easier.

So, how do we bring this to an end? We all want the same thing, everyone in this room wants the same thing. I think that’s the one thing that unites us, and the only thing that we may differ about is how we do it and that’s why I think we can all agree with that. Mark, [Avery] down on the front row, will say that banning grouse shooting is the best bet, and the RSPB will say that licensing is the best bet, but as Angela Smith said this morning, politics is the art of the possible, and I did clock that pretty strongly. And, you know, on that government has made it abundantly clear that they won’t go down the route of banning it and they won’t go down the route of licensing it and it seems now that this government is stabilised, with, with, Theresa whats-her-name, Theresa May, but, you know, stabilised for another three years and probably another term after that, so for a long time, you know, this government is in power and they’re not going to change their minds. So, on the art of the possible, if the first two routes are off the table that only leaves the government’s preferred option of the DEFRA six point plan which we heard about in detail from Adrian [Adrian Jowitt, Natural England] today. And of course, there are many people who for whatever reason don’t like that, but I bring you back to this point, this Angela Smith point, about, you know, politics being the art of the possible.

But another guy I went to see, you know, and who’s a good friend of mine who I’ve known for 20 years and is one of the great, great conservationists, well he’s a guru to me more than a friend. I like, I’m proud to call him a friend, he’s a guru to me, probably for 30 years, he’s guided all my steps in conservation, possibly for 35 years, and he’s one of the great, I mean he is of probably of all conservation biologists of all time, he’s probably done more for birds of prey than anyone else. You know, we heard from Ian [Rotherham] about the effect of persistent organochlorides [sic], DDT, on raptors, and this is the guy who started and appointed the team, and that team that included great people like Derek Ratcliffe, he, he set up that team at the research and then eventually cracked the problem of the birds of prey and of course, you know, I guess many of you will know who that is, Norman Moore. He really was one of the greats and I’m proud, well, we all need our gurus don’t we. He was, he was one for me. And it was such a privilege, I had the honour of speaking at his memorial service at the cathedral earlier this year and it was a huge, huge privilege to do that, and you know, he was immensely effective and was one of the greats.

So we get to the next one [next image on screen], and this is what he said. Can everybody at the back read that? Well, you don’t need me to tell you about it, you don’t need me to read it, but I’ll just leave you with it. You. Are you comfortable now, having read it? Well the point being, now who was it made that point this morning? Was it, was it Ian? Made that point, or somebody who made it, it’s just not science. And a couple of issues, people with different points of reference, well, we know that grouse moor managers have got different points of reference so things have to be explained, but, I’m pretty certain it was Ian who made that point this morning. But what for me, we just have to, if we want to get things across we have to get them across to people who are culturally completely different.

Right, my, the subject of my talk which I hope I haven’t wandered from, you know, I’m talking about the Hawk & Owl Trust’s involvement in the DEFRA plan and we heard from Adrian this morning and he went through it, so the first one, prevention, intelligence, led by senior police officers […inaudible…]. Well done to all involved and more power to your elbow.

Second one is monitoring of hen harrier breeding sites and winter roost sites. Well I do know a bit about this because winter roost sites on, in fact all four of our, well three of the, our four reserves are winter roost sites for raptors and marsh harriers and that’s when we see these hen harriers, down with us in the south east, that’s when we see them, and it’s absolutely crucial they’re monitored everywhere and protected everywhere, so well done to the guys who do that and usually on a voluntary basis.

So, and then of course number three, the sat tagging and the satellite tracking. Well, I mean nobody knows more about that than the other Steve [Stephen Murphy, Natural England] and he’s told me all about it, and I’m really pleased to see, to say that a number of tags have been fitted this year, tags funded by the Trust and fitted by, by Steve, and, and, and Trust staff and volunteers I think were with him when, when, it was, I mean they were fitted. And I think you’ll soon, as soon as they, well Steve will be able to tell you more of the detail, but soon you’ll be able to see the, their movements on the website. I mean it’s something I’m not very good on IT but I mean it’ll be really, really interesting that, and I, and I think it’s crucial, the more sat tags that are fitted, by everyone, the RSPB have obviously fitted them in the EU LIFE campaign means they can fit a lot, the less likely it will be, criminal gamekeepers to shoot them in other areas, you know, the risk will become increasingly greater because, you know, and I think this, this really does prevent it.

And then number four, diversionary feeding. I’ve been to Langholm a couple of times, well actually three, but once in early days and I’ve seen how effective this is and we’ll hear about this tomorrow from the speaker tomorrow, Sonja [Sonja Ludwig, GWCT], the speaker tomorrow, and of course this obviously is something that’s strongly supported and it should be carried out more widely and it is of course I’m told that people do it and where they, yeah, and it’s so damn obvious.

Number five, southern reintroductions, that was explained by Adrian and that’s something that obviously hasn’t started yet but of course it’s important and that’s where it’s crucial to get some confidence of landowners, farmers and others in the areas where they’re going to be reintroduced or where it’s proposed that they’re going to be reintroduced. It’s all about getting the confidence of the guys who manage the land, and there are several places been suggested, and, and that should be very interesting.

And then number six, which is what we hear so much about, we’ve already heard today, the trialling, and I do say trialling, people seem to think it’s an action, it is a trial. It’s the trial removal of eggs and young chicks where a certain threshold’s been reached. The incubating of them, the rearing of them, and you know, and don’t forget the Hawk & Owl Trust has got world class facilities to do this, owned and managed by a Trustee, and these really are world class facilities. And then of course, as Steve was telling us, released back on to the moors. And the other thing that we’ve done, the Trust, is make a really, really determined effort to get to know moorland owners and moorland managers and we’ve got quite a, quite a list of moorland managers and moorland owners who would be keen, no, more than keen, they would be proud, I’ll say that again, they would be proud to have hen, a pair of hen harriers on their moors. Of course they know that there’s, they’re semi-colonial nesters and everything but they’re proud to act as receptor moors for those translocated birds.

And I think the key issue about the DEFRA recovery, hen harrier recovery plan, is that while that hen harriers benefit hugely from and are largely dependent on the habitats created by good moorland management, large number of hen harriers and once again as I’ve said, don’t forget they are semi-colonial nesters can make grouse shooting unviable and we’ve heard about that hence, you know, that the management has that choice. As Langholm has shown, or, I mean, you’ll dispute what it’s shown, but I’m no expert on Langholm, but that, but that, oh I’m sorry I’m just losing my place, but, well you all know what Langholm does and you’ve all made up your own mind what Langholm did but it’ll get written up over the years and then we’ll all know more about it.

But I guess that, I guess the issue is, on the moors, that gamekeepers fear for their jobs, and their income and their houses, and they do continue with this appalling persecution, or some of them continue with this appalling persecution of these lovely birds and this is quite appalling. But, I mean and Mark said, in his book, it’s an understandable crime and there’s a reason for it, and I’m going to put Mark’s book up on the thing which is a really good read, it’s an interview with many bird watchers, and Mark’ll probably tell us about it. Right, good, now I’m almost at the end which I’m sure several of you will be relieved about. Right. Behind the Binoculars, and interesting one, on we go to the next one, this is where he interviewed, that’s right, Ian Newton, Ian obviously an eminent guy, eminent guy, Hawk & Owl Trust Vice President and he Chairs the Hawk & Owl Trust scientific advisory panel, so on to what he said. Mark, the first paragraph is Mark and I’ll just read the bits that I think, clearly he had the viewpoint that it [hen harrier persecution] was understandable, so what are we going to do about it? And Ian then on the second paragraph goes through and says well there are three possibilities as we heard about this afternoon and then on to the next one and then he says, this is Ian Newton again, really I think you’re left having to accept a third proposal: that harrier densities could be limited on grouse moors, to levels that allow some hen harriers to survive but allow grouse shooting, driven grouse shooting, to survive also. Ok, the idea then was the difficulty was in finding landowners. Well the good thing is that we’ve done that work, you know, because we’ve found landowners, we’ve got as I said, quite a respectable list. Then he says that would be a potential solution, and I bring you back to this word ‘potential’. Everybody thinks well we don’t know if it’ll work but it’s a potential solution.

So, where do we go to now? And I’m being hurried up, which is good, right. So, it goes on to say that we have, and it is a trial, I’m rattling through that, and I’ll just bring you back to something that Professor Redpath said. There’s a lot of evilness out there, and I like that word, it’s been used lots of times, Chris Packham, I picked up, it is because there is a lot of evilness out there but this trial will find out whether this evilness ceases or not, it’ll discover whether removing the reason for the crime reduces the crime, which’ll be the key. Whether it’ll work, I don’t know but grouse moor owners, or some of them, say that it will and I sincerely hope it will but it’s up to the guys out on the moors. We’ll find out whether this attempt at conflict resolution, and I’m a great believer in conflict resolution, we’ll find out whether it works or not. And for the sake of our hen harriers I hope it does.

END