Tag: hen harrier

Catastrophic decline of breeding hen harriers on grouse moors in NE Scotland

A new paper has been published today, describing the catastrophic decline of breeding hen harriers on grouse moors in north east Scotland.

This won’t be totally unexpected news to many readers of this blog; it’s well known, and has been known for over 30 years, that hen harriers are illegally killed on most driven grouse moors in the UK. This paper can be added to the piles of other scientific papers that have documented the illegal persecution of certain raptor species on grouse moors (e.g. hen harriers, peregrines and golden eagles – see here for a brief list of some of those papers).

But what’s different about this latest paper is that it shows it’s not just grouse moor managers screwing over hen harriers in North East Scotland – it’s also the government’s statutory nature conservation advisor, Scottish Natural Heritage.

The paper has been published in the February 2016 edition of British Birds (vol 109, pages 77-95). Unfortunately we’re not permitted to provide a full copy of the paper here – you have to subscribe to BB to access that – but we can publish the abstract and we can discuss the contents. Here’s a screen grab we took of the abstract:

Rebecca et al HH paper - Copy

The paper’s authors are all members of the North East Raptor Study Group (NERSG) and/or the RSPB, and they have drawn on their own data (comprehensive and thorough monitoring from 1980-2014 where the vast majority of hen harrier breeding attempts were believed to have been recorded) as well as a wide array of other data that were collected as part of national surveys for other moorland priority species by various statutory and NGO agencies.

From these data (which included studies on habitat and prey availability), 118 hen harrier breeding areas were identified as being suitable, 87% of which were on managed grouse moors. In 2014, only one hen harrier breeding attempt was recorded. To say that is pretty damning would be a gross understatement. It’s as shameful as the data from the grouse moors of the neighbouring Angus Glens, where there hasn’t been a single record of a hen harrier breeding attempt since 2006 (see here). It’s important to reiterate that these data are from Scotland. Usually the bad news stories about hen harriers are from English sites, and the grouse-shooting industry will often point to Scotland as a reason why we shouldn’t be concerned – ‘Ah, there’s hundreds of hen harriers in Scotland and they’re all doing fine, what’s the big fuss about?’ (see here). Forget ‘concern’; this latest paper, along with several others, shows exactly why we are right to be outraged.

As mentioned earlier, this paper not only puts grouse moor managers in the frame (again), but it also reveals SNH’s role in this sordid tale. Before we discuss that, it’s worth looking at this map to get your bearings. The purple boundary depicts the monitoring area of the NERSG, including the following important areas for hen harriers: lower Deeside (blue back-slashed hatch), upper Donside (blue forward-slash hatch), the Glen Tanar Hen Harrier SPA (orange zone), and the Ladder Hills potential SPA (brown zone). The green border shows the Cairngorms National Park boundary as of 2014.

NERSG monitoring area - Copy

The following text is para-phrased from the paper:

In the mid-late 1990s, SNH was considering the Ladder Hills as a proposed Special Protection Area (pSPA) for hen harriers and in 1995 and 1999 SNH approached the NERSG and RSPB for information regarding Annex 1 species that were using this area. The NERSG and RSPB strongly suspected that illegal persecution of hen harriers (and other raptors) was taking place at the Ladder Hills: in 1998 (a national  hen harrier survey year), eight of the nine hen harrier nests located in the Ladder Hills failed, with no obvious biological causes, and most pairs disappeared between survey visits (harriers often attempt to re-nest following a natural failure). In 1999 only three pairs were located in the Ladder Hills. Based on the data received, in early 2000 SNH proposed the Ladder Hills SSSI as an SPA, with hen harrier as the main qualifying interest.

Subsequent discussions between NERSG and RSPB with SNH revealed that landowners had objected to the proposal, claiming there were insufficient numbers of hen harriers and questioning the authenticity of earlier data. In some years data was collected by NERSG members with informal access and in others by workers with full access arrangements. ‘Full access arrangements’ means that RSPB fieldworkers participating in the 1998 national hen harrier survey were required to liaise fully with Estates over access and report their findings (to the Estates), and in extreme cases were accompanied by a gamekeeper during survey visits. We’ll come back to this.

In late 2000, the SNH position was that raptor persecution was likely on the Ladder Hills, but also that other factors such as habitat condition and prey availability might have also been contributing to the low occupancy and poor productivity of hen harriers. NERSG and RSPB did not support the ‘habitat and prey deficiency’ hypothesis and were convinced that human interference was the primary cause of the decline, yet this was difficult to prove.

A decision on SPA classification was deferred in 2000–03 while SNH commissioned further population survey and monitoring, and assessed prey availability and habitat suitability. In 2002 and 2003 these studies extended to other areas in Aberdeenshire and Moray to enable comparison. The assessment concluded: “There are large areas of breeding habitat with suitable nest sites available across the site and no evidence of lack of prey” (R. MacDonald, SNH Area Manager, Grampian, in litt. to Ian Francis, February 2004). Nevertheless, breeding numbers did not recover and the site was removed from the pSPA list following review. Concurrently, the site was designated as an SAC under the EU Habitats Directive and is now also part of the recently established Cairngorms National Park.

The paper’s authors welcomed the SAC and subsequent National Park designations, but do not consider them as appropriate substitutes for an SPA for hen harriers. They say that in the 1990s they had one of the best areas in the UK for this species. Grouse moor owners and managers did not agree with this assessment (and possible SPA designation) presumably because they believed their management would be open to greater scrutiny. The authors contend that SPA designation should have been pursued using either the average hen harrier breeding figures from the 1990s, as had been done for similar notified pSPAs in Scotland, or on the basis of the suitable ecological conditions, with the expectation that harriers would recolonise the area with protection.

The authors point out that the Scottish Government appears committed to eradicating hen harrier persecution and enhancing its breeding status but the Ladder Hills scenario is inconsistent with these objectives. There was no support for the ‘habitat and prey deficiency’ hypothesis following the commissioned research, and no reasons were given for the non-designation of the pSPA. The habitat and prey availability at the Ladder Hills SSSI/SAC are still considered suitable for breeding hen harriers and if harriers were to recover in North East Scotland, the site should be reconsidered as a pSPA.

[End of para-phrasing].

The Ladder Hills case study provides a fascinating insight to several things. First of all, it shows just how weak SNH has been in standing up to influential landowners. We’ve known this for some time but to learn that it was happening as far back as 16 years ago is surprising (to us at least, maybe not to some older readers of this blog). Even after commissioning further research to identify potential threats to hen harriers (which ruled out lack of suitable habitat and lack of prey availability as potential causes), and despite accepting that persecution was indeed one of the causes of breeding hen harrier failures in this region, SNH dropped their proposal to designate the Ladder Hills as a Special Protection Area. What’s the point of commissioning research (with tax payers money) if you’re then going to totally ignore the findings? Talk about not fit for purpose! SNH buckled when they were in a position, with strong supporting evidence, to create an SPA for this species. Not that designating a site as an SPA will automatically lead to species protection – look at all the other hen harrier SPAs in the UK (see map below, taken from RSPB’s Hen Harrier Life+ Project website – they’re all failing miserably – but at least the designation would have given conservationists some leverage to apply some pressure with European legislative backing.

HH SPA map

The second point of interest from this paper is the revelation that RSPB fieldworkers who were participating in the 1998 National Hen Harrier Survey were required to inform Estates about their survey visits and any subsequent survey results pertaining to their land, and in some cases were accompanied to those sites by the Estates’ gamekeepers. Is it just coincidence that many of the hen harrier nests that were recorded in NE Scotland during that survey year ‘mysteriously’ failed, and the number of sites found the following year dropped significantly from previous years? We don’t think so. Two + two = four, not five.

This issue of ‘transparency and trust’ is quite timely, given the blog we wrote four days ago about landowners wanting access to raptor study group data (see here). Tim (Kim) Baynes of the lairds’ lobby group Scottish Land and Estates stated that ‘The persecution of raptors is becoming a thing of the past, but there is also a duty on [the] raptor lobby to engage and share information“. Given the contents of this latest paper, he’s having a bloody laugh. Indeed, the authors write: “Levels of trust and cooperation between most raptor enthusiasts and grouse-moor estates in NE Scotland are at an all time low“. And who can blame them?

The authors discuss several potential solutions to help conserve hen harriers in NE Scotland, including the use of buffer zones around nest sites (already routinely used by SNH to protect harriers at windfarm development sites), the use of nest cameras, the use of supplementary feeding, and encouraging more golden eagles to reach natural densities in these areas as they’re predicted to naturally suppress the hen harrier population. All good suggestions, but all doomed to failure if the grouse-shooting industry is allowed to continue behaving with impunity.

UPDATE 4th Feb 2016

Two other blogs have been written about this paper and are both well worth a read:

Mark Avery here

Ian Thomson (Head of Investigations, RSPB Scotland) here

More shameless spin-doctoring from the Gift of Grouse

Gift of GrouseTim (Kim) Baynes, Director of the grouse-shooting industry’s propaganda campaign, The Gift of Grouse, is shameless. He must be to have penned his latest bout of spin-doctoring, this time pointing the finger at raptor workers.

Before we begin, here’s a definition of a spin doctor:

“A person whose job involves trying to control the way something is described to the public in order to influence what people think about it“.

Ladies and gentlemen, the spin doctor is IN.

The following article, authored by Tim (Kim) Baynes, appears in today’s Courier and is entitled: ‘Trust needs to develop quickly between raptor groups and land management‘.

Despite the grouse season ending more than a month ago, our moorland continues to fire passions on all sides.

Since Jim Crumley’s last column, The Courier letters’ pages have been alive with debate. Yet, much of the criticism levelled at estates does not reflect what I see on our moors.

The Gift of Grouse campaign demonstrates the benefits of moorland, including species conservation.

Since then, a number of reports have been publicised. One looked at species present on Invermark, the estate cited by Jim Crumley. It found that 81 different bird species were breeding or feeding there, including a range of ‘red-listed’ most at risk birds. Amongst those present were 10 species of raptor including peregrine, golden eagle and hen-harrier.

Similar is happening on many Scottish estates. Yet disappointingly, the politics of the past – pitting raptor enthusiast versus gamekeeper – are still being played. The RSPB’s report uses incidents from two decades ago to influence present-day policymaking.  But, official figures from the past five years demonstrate raptor incidents are now in the teens per annum, with only some linked to land management. There is always work to be done but the law is tough on anyone convicted of wildlife crime, and even higher sentences are likely soon.

At the heart of this is continuing mistrust between some raptor enthusiasts and land managers. There are also internal rivalries within the raptor groups on who monitors which area, and this leads to secrecy. This is a serious issue as land managers need to know which birds are on their land in order to better manage them, but the survey results are often not shared with them, even when funded by bodies such as Scottish Natural Heritage.

To break down mistrust, we must develop ways of maximising both raptors and prey species alongside grouse.  It should not be an either/or scenario. The persecution of raptors is becoming a thing of the past, but there is also a duty on raptor lobby to engage and share information. Trust is developing in some places but it needs to spread – and rapidly.

ENDS

Oh god, where to begin?

For context, perhaps we should begin by pointing out to those who don’t already know, Tim (Kim) Baynes is employed by the lairds’ lobby group Scottish Land & Estates as Director of the Scottish Moorland Group. The Scottish Moorland Group is chaired by the one and only Lord Hopetoun – he of the Leadhills (Hopetoun) Estate – an estate with one of the worst records of illegal raptor persecution in the country.

Tim (Kim) is right in his assertion that there is distrust between some raptor workers and some landowners. Of course there is, and with bloody good reason!

Scottish Land & Estates (SLE) portrays itself as a wildlife-crime-fighting organisation and frequently points to its membership of the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW Scotland) as evidence of this. SLE has consistently stated that it is working hard to eradicate wildlife crime, and particularly illegal raptor persecution. The thing is, many raptor workers simply don’t believe them. Why not? Well probably because SLE has not sought to expel several member estates that have been implicated, over many years, in raptor persecution crimes. It would be an easy thing for them to do, but they haven’t done it. Until they do, raptor workers (and the general public) are justified to view SLE and their land-owning members with deep suspicion.

Another good reason for distrusting SLE is their continued denial of the extent of illegal raptor persecution, and their denial that the grouse-shooting industry (some of whom are members of SLE) is in any way implicated with these crimes (e.g. see here and here for just two recent examples). Where clear evidence has been provided, (e.g. 81% of all reported poisoning incidents in Scotland between 2005-2014 were on land used for game-shooting – see here), SLE has simply dismissed the figures and slagged off the RSPB for providing them (here).

RSPB persecution review 1994 2014 land use

In his article for the Courier, Tim (Kim) tries to claim that grouse moors are ‘good’ for species conservation and refers to a recent ‘study’ of breeding birds on Invermark Estate to back up this claim. The problem is, the full details of that ‘study’ (and a couple of others) have not been made available for public scrutiny, despite several requests to see it, and therefore has naff all credibility, especially when the ‘study’ of breeding birds was conducted, er, outside of the breeding season (see here).

But what interested us the most about Tim’s (Kim’s) article in the Courier was his (false) accusations (he’s good at those) about the raptor study groups. He said:

“There are also internal rivalries within the raptor groups on who monitors which area, and this leads to secrecy. This is a serious issue as land managers need to know which birds are on their land in order to better manage them, but the survey results are often not shared with them, even when funded by bodies such as Scottish Natural Heritage”.

This is absolute rubbish. The Scottish Raptor Study Group comprises 12 regional branches. These branches organise raptor monitoring within clearly-defined geographic regions, to avoid over-lapping and thus avoid ‘double-counting’ as well as ‘double disturbance’ of sensitive species. All the raptor workers who monitor Schedule 1 species are licensed (by SNH) to do so. These Schedule 1 disturbance licences are issued for specific areas; so if you have a licence to monitor, say, golden eagles in one area, you can’t use the same licence to monitor them in another area unless your licence specifically includes another area. Again, this is to regulate the amount of disturbance to sensitive species. There is no “internal rivalry” – raptor workers simply get on with monitoring in their own patch.

Raptor workers DO share their data – they provide their results to the Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme (SRMS) and have been doing so since 2002! Tim (Kim) is obviously annoyed that landowners aren’t given access to those data “in order to better manage” those species. We all know what he means by “better manage” and that is precisely why raptor workers would be reluctant to share location data about highly persecuted species with dodgy landowners. Duh!

Tim (Kim) tries to imply that raptor workers are funded by SNH and as such, the data they collect should be made publicly available. Again, he either misunderstands the system or he’s trying to spin it so that raptor workers look like the bad guys. The truth is, raptor workers are not ‘funded’ by SNH, or by anyone else. SNH does provide SOME funding to the SRSG, but this amounts to a small contribution towards raptor workers’ fuel costs. It certainly doesn’t cover the full fuel costs (the funding is actually well below the commercial mileage rate claimed by consultants) and it does not cover the thousands and thousands of hours of time that raptor workers put in to their monitoring efforts. As such, the data collected by raptor workers belong to the individual raptor worker; not to SNH, not to the SRSG, and not to anybody else. These raptor workers are volunteers – nobody pays for their time, experience and expertise. They can do what they like with their data. That they contribute those data to the SRMS is to their credit, and they do so because they know their data will be useful to conservation and scientific organisations who want to keep tabs on species’ populations. Tim (Kim) Bayne’s inference that raptor workers are the problem is disgraceful.

Trust him and the grouse-shooting industry? Not a bloody chance. Not until we see SLE expelling the estates where persistent raptor persecution continues. Not until we see SLE supporting the work of RSPB Scotland’s investigations team. Not until we see SLE acknowledging the extent of illegal raptor persecution. Not until we see healthy, sustainable breeding populations of raptors such as golden eagles, hen harriers, peregrines, over  a period of years, on driven grouse moors in central, eastern and southern Scotland.

By the way, Kim, you still haven’t provided an explanation for why hen harriers have been absent as a breeding species in the Angus Glens since 2006 (here). Try and spin-doctor your way out of that.

Countryside Alliance (aka Leery lunatics on acid) think hen harriers doing just fine

image001 - CopyHere’s some more comedy gold from the Countryside Alliance (Leery lunatics on acid, for you anagram fans). The following letter was published in a recent (January) edition of Countryfile mag:

Hen harrier ups and downs

The article about raptors in November’s issue repeated the often made, but incorrect, claim that the poor breeding numbers of hen harriers in England are caused by activities of shooting estates. In reality, the hen harrier had disappeared from mainland Britain by the end of the 19th century, due to loss of habitat and persecution. Birds started to increase after the Second World War until the 1990s when the species again went into decline. Numbers are creeping up again and there has been a 300% year-on-year increase in nesting attempts for 2015 – many of which took place on grouse moors. While there are conflicts between hen harriers and shooting interests, it is simplistic and unhelpful to attribute their decline solely to gamekeepers. Hen harrier numbers are equally poor in areas where shooting does not take place but which are suitable for their breeding. Charlotte Cooper, Head of Media Relations, Countryside Alliance.

It’s not the first time the Countryside Alliance has been in full-blown denial about the extent of hen harrier persecution on driven grouse moors (e.g. see here), and undoubtedly it won’t be the last.

The real reality (not the CA’s version of it) looks like this, this, this, this, this, this etc etc. The persistent denial of what everyone else knows to be true (including the Westminster & Scottish governments), is yet another reason why DEFRA’s Hen Harrier Action Plan is set to fail. There are many other reasons too, and some of them have been described here.

The e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting closes this Thursday. So far, over 30,000 UK citizens have signed it. It’s a much more effective Action Plan than anything DEFRA and it’s grouse-shooting-hen-harrier-killing-mates have come up with. Please sign HERE

DEFRA finally publishes its Hen Harrier Action Plan

hh LAURIE CAMPBELLDEFRA has today published its long awaited Hen Harrier Action Plan.

As expected, the six ‘actions’ that apparently will contribute to the recovery of the hen harrier are as follows:

  1. Monitoring of hen harrier populations in England and the UK
  2. Diversionary feeding of hen harriers on grouse moors
  3. Analyse monitoring data and build intelligence picture
  4. Nest and winter roost site protection
  5. Reintroduce hen harriers to southern England
  6. Trial a brood management scheme

In its current format, the Action Plan provides a general overview and outline of all six actions. There’s very little detail available, which makes it a difficult plan to critique in full, but a few things did jump out.

Diversionary feeding has proven to be successful at deterring hen harriers from eating loads of red grouse at the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project. However, in this action plan grouse moor owners are only being ‘encouraged’ to use diversionary feeding as a course of ‘best practice’. That means that they are not obliged to implement diversionary feeding as a first course of action to reduce the conflict, which seems a bit odd.

Monitoring of hen harrier populations and the subsequent analysis of those data will continue, to ‘build the intelligence picture’. Nothing new there, and monitoring would continue with or without this action plan anyway. How those data will be used isn’t all that clear. The action plan states that a direct benefit will be ‘increased awareness of any hotspots of illegal activity and may allow better preventative measures to be taken at specific sites‘. That’s hardly inspiring. The hotspots are already well known (just look for the nearest driven grouse moor) and there’s not much that can be done if adult males are being killed away from the nest whilst they forage on neighbouring ground. We saw that last May with the ‘disappearance’ (killing) of five adult males.

Nest and winter roost site protection. Again, the nest sites (when the birds have been allowed to settle) are already well monitored and that would continue without this action plan. Protection of roost sites is much more problematic, especially when the harrier killers are armed with night vision and thermal imaging kit, and there isn’t any information about how this protection might be delivered.

The plan to reintroduce hen harriers to the lowlands of southern England needs much further scrutiny. At the moment the proposal is based on an unpublished feasibility report so it’s hard to comment on that. Nevertheless, the general principle of reintroducing the hen harrier is open to question. One of several IUCN criteria that have to be met before a reintroduction of any species can go ahead is that the cause of the species’ (local) extinction needs to have been both identified and rectified. If persecution of the hen harrier is the main reason for its absence in these areas, where’s the evidence that persecution has been addressed?

The final action point is undoubtedly the most controversial – a trial brood management (meddling) scheme. Brood management, in this context, means removing hen harrier eggs/chicks from driven grouse moors when hen harriers have reached a certain density on that moor (or on nearby moors) and rearing them in captivity and then releasing them at fledging age. We’ve blogged about this a lot, ever since the Hawk & Owl Trust announced almost a year ago that it was the way forward. It’s not an action we would support under any circumstances, no matter what the hen harrier population size is. In our view, it amounts to legalised persecution. If driven grouse shooting can’t exist without the need to remove hen harriers then it either needs to lower its expectations (bag size) or cease to exist.

Nevertheless, it’s interesting to read what this action plan says about the proposed brood meddling trial. It refers to a paper that was published last August (Elston, Spezia, Baines & Redpath: Working with stakeholders to reduce conflict – modelling the impact of varying hen harrier densities on red grouse populations). The action plan says brood meddling will be guided by hen harrier densities as determined in this paper. The generally accepted consensus is that once there are 70 breeding pairs of hen harriers in the English uplands, then brood meddling can be considered (depending on the density of hen harriers at a local scale). However, this calculation was made based on the cyclical boom and bust of red grouse populations. Not only have those natural grouse cycles now been eradicated (by the use of medicated grit – see here), but post-breeding densities of red grouse are currently higher than in previous years (an incredible mean density of 382 red grouse per km2, according to the GWCT – see here), which means that those moors can support a higher density of hen harriers. In real terms, this means the target density for hen harriers should be increased accordingly (i.e. there should be more than 70 breeding pairs before brood meddling is implemented).

Having said that, we’re not too concerned about the immediate onset of a brood meddling trial in England because we simply can’t see the driven grouse shooting industry tolerating 70 (+) pairs of breeding hen harriers. Last year there were six successful pairs in the whole of England – an area capable of supporting 300+ pairs. And that pathetic figure was a result of the driven grouse shooting industry supposedly ‘being on side’ and ‘fully supporting hen harrier conservation’!

Interestingly, Martin Harper (RSPB Conservation Director) has blogged about the launch of the action plan (here) and although he acknowledges it isn’t perfect, he says he welcomes it. Eh? The last we heard, the RSPB was still challenging the brood meddling aspect of the plan – what’s changed?

No doubt we’ll be blogging more about the action plan as the 2016 hen harrier breeding season pans out.

Download DEFRA’s Hen Harrier Action Plan here: DEFRA hen-harrier-action-plan-england-2016

No breeding hen harriers on Angus Glens grouse moors since 2006

hh LAURIE CAMPBELLWe were just doing a bit of background research on claims made by the grouse-shooting industry’s propaganda campaign website, The Gift of Grouse (more on that shortly) and we thought we’d share some startling figures.

The following data are from the Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme (SRMS) annual reports. The SRMS was established in the summer of 2002 (website here) and is currently a consortium of eight organisations who pool their data to provide information on raptor trends across Scotland (distribution, abundance, breeding success etc).

Here are their results on hen harrier monitoring in Angus from 2003-2014 (2015 data not yet available).

2014: 26 x HH home ranges checked; 0 occupied by breeding pairs.

2013: 23 x HH home ranges checked; 0 occupied by breeding pairs.

2012: 30 x HH home ranges checked; 0 occupied by breeding pairs.

2011: 31 x HH home ranges checked; 0 occupied by breeding pairs.

2010: 23 x HH home ranges checked; 0 occupied by breeding pairs.

2009: 1 x HH home range checked; 0 occupied by breeding pairs.

2008: 27 x HH home ranges checked; 2 occupied by breeding pairs; 0 fledglings.

2007: 15 x HH home ranges checked; 0 occupied by breeding pairs.

2006: 5 x HH home ranges checked; 5 occupied by breeding pairs; 1 pair fledged 3 young.

2005: 4 x HH home ranges checked: 4 occupied by breeding pairs; 2 pairs fledged total of 7 young.

2004: 5 x HH home ranges checked; 4 occupied by breeding pairs; 1 pair fledged 5 young.

2003: 5 x HH home ranges checked; 5 occupied by breeding pairs; 2 pairs fledged total of 7 young.

Pre-2003 data are unavailable (as the scheme only started in late 2002) but a comment next to the 2003 data is quite telling: “Noteworthy are the two pairs that successfully reared young on the grouse moors of Angus, the first for many years“.

So, despite comprehensive monitoring efforts since 2007 (with the exception of 2009 when only one known home range was checked), hen harriers have failed to breed successfully on the grouse moors of the Angus Glens since 2006.

Why is that?

And why hasn’t the Gift of Grouse campaign mentioned this on their website, on their social media accounts, in their press releases, or during the parliamentary receptions they’ve been enjoying at Holyrood where they’ve been feted as environmental champions by some pretty naive MSPs?

Location of shot hen harrier revealed as Cabrach

In the week before Christmas, RSPB Scotland published a 20-year review of crimes against birds of prey. We blogged about it (here) and mentioned that a few things within the report had caught our eye and that we’d come back to them. Here’s the first of those things.

Cabrach shot HH 2013

Table 3 in the report (see above) included a listing for a hen harrier that had been shot in June 2013. We knew about this crime as it had previously been listed in the Scottish Government’s 2013 Annual Wildlife Crime Report, but this was the first time that a location had been given – Cabrach, in Moray.

Cabrach is a parish which is ‘almost entirely under the aegis of the Glenfiddich and Cabrach Estate’ according to this fascinating report (here) and has been at the centre of raptor persecution investigations for a very long time. In 1998, a joint RSPB and Police investigation recorded ten persecution incidents between February and May. These included the discovery of 24 poisoned baits (ten rabbits, six pigeons, six grouse and two hares) that had been laid out on the hill. Three illegal pole traps were also found on the estate as well as an owl with legs that had been smashed in a trap. A dead peregrine was also discovered in the back of the head gamekeeper’s Land Rover – tests revealed it had been poisoned with Carbofuran. The head gamekeeper was convicted (for possession of the dead peregrine) and fined £700 (see here) but prosecutions for the other offences were not forthcoming, presumably due to the difficulty of identifying an individual culprit.

In April 2006 another gamekeeper on this estate was filmed shooting two buzzards that had been caught inside a crow cage trap. After he’d shot them he hid them inside a nearby rabbit hole. He was convicted and fined a pathetic £200 (see here). What wasn’t mentioned in court was that the corpses of another eleven shot buzzards had been retrieved during the investigation from nearby rabbit holes. Here they are listed in the RSPB’s 2006 persecution report:

Cabrach 11 shot buzzards 2006

And so what of the hen harrier shooting in June 2013? We think that this is the crime for which a 58-year old man was reported to the Fiscal in January 2014 (see here) because the hen harrier shot at Cabrach was the only listed hen harrier persecution incident in the RSPB’s data for June 2013 (see top table above).

So, if the 58-year old man was reported to the Fiscal almost two years ago, time is now running out for a prosecution – this case will become time-barred in six months time (June 2016). Let’s hope the Crown is on top of it and that there’s good enough evidence to secure a conviction. It hasn’t been reported whether the 58 year-old man has any connection to the Glenfiddich and Cabrach Estate and so at this stage it shouldn’t be assumed that he has.

New report reveals hundreds of raptors illegally killed on game-shooting estates in Scotland

RSPB persecution review 1994 2014Yesterday the RSPB published its latest figures on illegal raptor persecution in Scotland.

Rather than their usual annual review, this time they’ve produced a 20-year review covering the period 1994-2014. This is a really useful exercise as it puts the scale of (known) persecution in to perspective. It’s a sobering read.

A total of 779 birds of prey were confirmed to have been illegally killed during this period, either by poisoning, shooting or trapping. The known victims included 104 red kites, 37 golden eagles, 30 hen harriers, 16 goshawks, 10 white-tailed eagles and 458 buzzards.

In addition to these confirmed victims, a further 171 incidents are documented where poisoned baits and/or non-birds of prey victims were found, including 14 pet cats and 14 pet dogs, and then a further 134 incidents where no victim had been found but clear attempts to target raptors had been uncovered (e.g. illegally-set traps).

The report includes a map showing the landholdings of all known persecution incidents during this period. As ever, it’s pretty revealing, with a handful on the west coast but the vast majority in the uplands of central, eastern and southern Scotland – areas dominated by driven grouse shooting.

RSPB persecution review 1994 2014 map

Drilling down in to the detail, there’s a useful analysis of land-use type of confirmed poisoning incidents between 2005-2014 (219 incidents). A shocking (or not) 81% of confirmed poisoning incidents during this nine-year period were on land used for game-shooting: 57% on grouse moors and 24% on land managed for lowland pheasant shoots. This tells us a great deal about who is responsible for the vast majority of illegal raptor poisoning. Despite their continued denials and protestations, and their increasingly-desperate attempts to minimise the scale of these crimes (“it’s just a few rogues”, “it’s just a small minority”), this graphic exposes the criminality at the heart of the game-shooting industry:

RSPB persecution review 1994 2014 land use

Further damning evidence, which isn’t needed by most of us but for the benefit of those who are still in denial of the bleedin’ obvious, is this graph showing the occupations of those convicted of raptor persecution between 1994-2014. Surprise, surprise, 86% of them were gamekeepers:

RSPB persecution review 1994 2014 occupation

RSPB Scotland is to be commended for publishing this exceptionally detailed and meticulously-researched report. There are a number of things in it that are of particular interest to us and we’ll come back to those in due course. For now though, particular recognition should go to the Investigations team – they may be small in number but their contribution to exposing the disgraceful continuation of illegal raptor persecution in Scotland is enormous. They, and their colleagues south of the border, are worthy of high acclaim. If anybody reading this is in a position to recognise excellence in the field of raptor conservation, e.g. a nomination for an award, this team should be at the top of your list.

So, how has the Environment Minister, Dr Aileen McLeod, responded to such an embarrassing report? She said: “There is no doubt that the figures in this report make for uncomfortable reading, but we have made progress in recent years with the new vicarious liability provisions, the publication of the report from the Wildlife Crime Penalties Review Group, new measures implementing restrictions on the use of General Licences and earlier this year the Scottish Government funded pesticide disposal scheme that removed over 700kg of illegally held poisons in Scotland“.

“We have made progress…” Hmm. Let’s have a look:

Vicarious liability – introduced almost 4 years ago and only two successful convictions to date. A slow (but good) start, but we need to see many more convictions.

Wildlife Crime Penalties Review – Commissioned over two years ago, published last month. An excellent report calling for tougher sanctions but we’re waiting to hear whether the Environment Minister will act on the recommendations. Can only be defined as ‘progress’ if she agrees to act.

General Licence restrictions – available to be used against landholdings where raptor crimes committed/suspected from 1st January 2014. So far, only two restrictions have been implemented and those only lasted for six days each before they were suspended as legal arguments continue. A slow start, and the legal challenges were to be expected, but can’t be defined as ‘progress’ unless the restrictions are fully implemented. There should also be a lot more of them.

Pesticide disposal scheme –  implemented this year and resulted in the removal of some illegally-held poisons. That is progress, although it is tinged with frustration that the game-shooting industry was given yet another chance to avoid justice as this scheme (the second of its kind) comes 14 years after the pesticides were originally banned. It’s also interesting to note in the RSPB’s report (page 18) that evidence suggests a number of individuals have retained their illegal stocks. This is supported by more poisoning incidents that have taken place this year, after the disposal scheme ended.

So some progress has been made (and almost entirely due to the efforts of Dr McLeod’s predecessor, Paul Wheelhouse) but it is glacially slow and, so far, has not stemmed the occurrence of illegal persecution, as the damning figures in this report show all too clearly. Much, much more can and needs to be done before we’ll be convinced that Dr McLeod is having any sort of impact. She has, though, announced that tenders have just been invited for a review of game licensing practices in other countries (to inform a possible decision of introducing licensing to game-shooting estates in Scotland), and that’s a good thing, but again, the research needs to be done and then a decision made, which probably won’t happen for a number of years if past performance is anything to go by. She’d find herself with a lot more support if she got on with announcing increased investigatory powers for the SSPCA – the public consultation closed 1 year and 3 months ago – and still we await her decision as the criminals continue their rampage. It’s not impressive at all.

And what of the response of the game-shooting industry itself? Some didn’t bother to publish a statement (Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association), which ironically tells us quite a lot, although they are quoted in an article by STV (see media coverage below) where they revert to type and simply deny the evidence and slag off the RSPB instead. And remember, the SGA is a fully-paid up member of the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (cough).

Scottish Land and Estates (SLE), another PAW partner, did manage to issue a statement, via their Scottish Moorland Group (see media coverage below). Again, it’s the usual lamentable denial, characterised beautifully by this statement from Director Tim (Kim) Baynes:

“Bird of prey deaths……have fallen dramatically over the last five years in particular“.

Er, here are some persecution figures that Kim might want to re-punch in to his calculator:

2012 – 18 confirmed deaths

2013 – 28 confirmed deaths

2014 – 37 confirmed deaths

There’s also this statement:

“Our condemnation of wildlife crime is unquivocal...” All very touching but how is that “condemnation” manifested in the real world? It’s been brought to our attention that the current head gamekeeper on a Scottish grouse shooting estate has a (spent) conviction for shooting dead a raptor when he worked on another Scottish grouse moor. How does a criminal with a conviction like that (spent or not) remain employed in the game-shooting industry, let alone get a senior position on another Scottish grouse moor? Was he one of the posse of moorland gamekeepers recently invited to Holyrood to mingle with, and be applauded by, a number of MSPs, as part of the Gift of Grouse propaganda campaign? Surely not…

Download the RSPB report here

Media coverage

RSPB press release here

Statement from Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod here

Scottish Moorland Group statement here

BBC news here

STV article here

BBC Radio Scotland (Newsdrive) interview with Ian Thomson, Head of Investigations RSPB Scotland here (starts at 21.50, available for 29 days)

Guardian article here (a mis-leading headline but nevertheless good to see coverage in this paper)

Bird of prey ‘initiative’ in Peak District National Park fails to deliver

IMG_5764 (2)In 2011, a five-year ‘Bird of Prey Initiative’ was launched which aimed to restore declining populations of some raptor species in the Dark Peak region of the Peak District National Park.

This ‘initiative’ was deemed necessary following years of evidence of wide scale raptor persecution within the region (e.g. see RSPB summary reports here and here).

The members of the ‘Bird of Prey Initiative’ comprised five organisations: The Moorland Association, The National Trust, Natural England, Peak District National Park Authority and the RSPB. Two local raptor study groups (the Peak District Raptor Monitoring Group and the South Peak Raptor Study Group) were also involved.

Targets were set to increase the breeding populations of three key raptor species for which the area had been given Special Protection Area status, i.e. it was considered a nationally important site for these raptors.

The targets were set as follows:

Merlin: increase from 22 breeding pairs to 32 breeding pairs by 2015

Short-eared owl: maintain the average breeding population of 25 pairs to 2015.

Peregrine: increase from 13 breeding pairs to 15 breeding pairs by 2015.

These targets were not unreasonable – they reflected the number of breeding pairs that the SPA should have been able to support.

goshawk-legsInterestingly, the group failed to set any targets to improve the breeding populations of local goshawks and hen harriers; there was just an ‘expectation’ that these species would be encouraged to breed. Sure, neither are an SPA-qualifying species in this area but nevertheless the area used to hold historically important populations which have since been reduced, through illegal persecution, to an occasional successful pair, so why exclude them?

Anyway, the ‘initiative’ has now ended and surprise surprise, the targets set for merlin, short-eared owl and peregrine have not been met. And goshawks and hen harriers are still largely absent with just a couple of exceptions. You can download the project report here for details: PDNP-Birds-of-Prey-Report-2012-15

In response to the report’s findings, Rhodri Thomas, an ecologist with the Peak District National Park Authority, is quoted in this BBC article (here) as saying the report’s findings are “concerning and disappointing“. Mark Avery has described the findings as “entirely predictable and totally unacceptable” (see here).

Rhodri Thomas goes on to say that the decline in peregrine numbers (now at only four pairs) was the hardest to explain as numbers in other parts of the Park were increasing and there was no obvious reason why they were staying away from the Dark Peak. He said he was determined to “bottom-out” what was causing the decline.

Here’s an easy starting point for him – try reading the provisional results of the most recent National Peregrine Survey (see here) as well as the recent paper documenting peregrine declines in another region dominated by driven grouse shooting (see here).

Sorry, Rhodri, but it’s not that difficult to understand.

In a press release from the Peak District National Park (see here), there’s talk of ‘renewed commitment’ from the project partners as well as ‘new rigour and energy’ to restore the breeding success of raptors in the Dark Peak. This is, of course, utter bollocks.

Mark Avery has picked up on this in his blog from this morning (see here), and as he says, it’s just an opportunity for the National Park authorities to hide behind a failing project for a few more years and avoid taking any real action, like, for example, banning driven grouse shooting within the National Park.

We’re so tired of all this ‘talking’ and so-called ‘cooperation’. It hasn’t worked and nor will it work. How do you move on from a conversation that goes something like this:

Conservationists to the grouse shooting industry: “Stop illegally killing raptors”.

Grouse shooting industry to conservationists: “We’re not killing them”.

Meanwhile, the killing continues and The Untouchables remain untouchable. The time for talking is over.

Sign the petition to ban driven grouse shooting here

This dead goshawk (photo above) was found in the Peak District National Park in 2014 – both legs were broken and its injuries were consistent with being caught in an illegally set spring trap.

Satellite-tagged hen harrier Holly “has died”

Hen Harrier Holly 2015Three weeks ago we blogged (here) about two Hen Harrier chicks that had been satellite-tagged as part of the RSPB’s Hen Harrier Life+ Project. The two birds were named Holly and Chance, and members of the public could follow their movements on the Hen Harrier Life+ Project website.

Chance was a 2014 bird from SW Scotland, and she traveled to France for the 2014 winter, then back to the UK in spring 2015, and is currently back in France.

Holly was a 2015 bird from a site on MOD ground in Argyll. She fledged in August 2015 and in mid-October was reported to have dispersed to ‘the uplands of Central Scotland’.

The following statement has just appeared on the Hen Harrier Life+ Project website:

Holly – Latest Movements

“Unfortunately, recent data received from Holly’s satellite tag suggests that she has died. This is being followed up, and we will provide further information as soon as possible”.

There isn’t any further detail provided. The wording above suggests that her corpse has not been recovered (if it had, project staff would know for definite that she was dead, rather than inferring death from her sat tag signal). If that is the case, then obviously the cause of death can’t be ascertained until her body has been retrieved and examined. It’s hard not to assume the worst given the grouse-shooting industry’s inherent hatred and intolerance of this species, but it’s also worth being cautious at this stage. As unlikely as it sounds, it’s entirely possible that her sat tag has simply dropped off and it is just the tag that’s drilling a hole in the map. Time will tell.

We look forward to further updates from the project team.

Photo of Holly from the RSPB Hen Harrier Life+ Project website.

National Audubon Society (USA) raises awareness of hen harrier persecution in UK

An article about UK hen harrier persecution has been published by the National Audubon Society, a massive environmental NGO in North America.

Written by journalist Emma Bryce, it’s a pretty good overview of the situation, especially for North American readers who may have no prior knowledge of this issue.

One minor criticism – the article focuses heavily, understandably, on hen harrier persecution in England, although it’s just as big a problem in large areas of Scotland where driven grouse moors are dominant. We’ve blogged before about this perception of hen harrier persecution being just ‘an English issue’ – see here – it’s a position the harrier killers like to promote in an attempt to diminish the extent of their crimes.

Nevertheless, it’s great to see a well-respected organisation like the NAS take such an interest and help to raise awareness.

The article can be read here.

Audubon HH article