A few weeks ago just before Xmas, Natural England published an update on the fates of three brood meddled satellite-tracked hen harriers: one that had been found dead in north Devon on 5th March 2024 (it died of natural causes) and two that had both vanished within a week of each other from a winter roost site in the North Pennines in December 2022 and whose gunshot-riddled corpses were later found in April and June 2023 (see here).
An illegally killed hen harrier. Photo by Ruth Tingay
Both of these shot hen harriers were found in the North Pennines National Landscape (previously known as an AONB, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and the North Pennines NL was quick to highlight these ongoing crimes by posting a statement on its website the following day.
The Director of the North Pennines NL, Chris Woodley-Stewart, has long been proactively involved in raising awareness about raptor persecution in the area (e.g. see here) and he’s quoted in the North Pennines NL statement as follows:
“It has taken some time to come to light and given that the bodies were on the ground for months before being found, the precise cause of death is uncertain. However, the two birds were found with lead shot in them, near to a North Pennines roost site.
“Whatever the conclusion about the explicit cause of death, the shotgun pellets tell an unequivocal story of illegality. Someone shot these birds with the intent of ending their lives; why else do it? This, regardless of the ultimate cause of death, is evidence of ongoing illegal raptor persecution in the North Pennines.
“This has to stop. We will continue to work with others to raise awareness and support practical action where we can. We’re asking, as always, for anyone with information about any incidents of raptor persecution, to come forward using the confidential hotline“.
The confidential hotline Chris mentioned is the RSPB’s Raptor Crime Hotline, Tel: 0300 999 0101, for sensitive information specifically relating to the illegal targeting of birds of prey.
Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for Natural England to provide updates / post mortem results on four other satellite-tagged hen harriers that were found dead during the first eight months of 2024, and all four of them in Northumberland:
Hen harrier ‘Susie’, female, Tag ID 201122. Last known transmission 12 February 2024, Northumberland. Found dead. Site confidential. In NE’s April 2024 update, Susie was listed as, ‘recovered, awaiting post mortem‘. In NE’s August 2024 update her listing says, ‘Ongoing police investigation, final transmission location temporarily withheld at police request‘. You might remember ‘Susie’ – she’s the hen harrier whose chicks were brutally stamped on and crushed to death in their nest on a grouse moor in Whernside in the Yorkshire Dales National Park, in June 2022 (here).
Hen harrier ‘Edna’, female, Tag ID 161143a. Last known transmission 7 June 2024, Northumberland. ‘Recovered, awaiting post mortem‘.
Hen harrier, female, Tag ID 254843. Last known transmission 29 July 2024, Northumberland. ‘Recovered, awaiting post mortem‘.
Hen harrier, male, Tag ID 254839. Last known transmission 5 August 2024, Northumberland. ‘Recovered, awaiting post mortem‘.
Natural England last updated its online database of satellite-tagged hen harriers in August 2024. That was five months ago, so who knows how many more may have ‘disappeared’ or been found illegally killed since then?
We know of at least one more killed, as revealed exclusively by Channel 4 News in October 2024 when it published covert footage filmed by the RSPB of three gamekeepers on an undisclosed grouse moor in northern England discussing the shooting of an untagged hen harrier and casually chatting to one another about other protected species they’d shot that same afternoon (see here). The police haven’t released any information about a subsequent investigation.
My current running tally of hen harriers that have either been illegally killed or have ‘disappeared’ in suspicious circumstances, most of them on or close to grouse moors, since 2018 stands at 130 birds and this list doesn’t include any of the four Natural England-tagged hen harriers listed above because their causes of death have not yet been revealed.
The following is a guest blog by someone who wishes to remain anonymous, although I know their identity.
STOBO HOPE – DID GWCT ‘ADVICE’ HELP AVOID AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ON THE DESTRUCTION OF BLACK GROUSE HABITAT?
Herbicide damage at Stobo Hope, July 2024
Regular readers may be familiar with Stobo Hope, a large area of heather moorland with wildlife including golden eagles and the second largest black grouse lek in the Scottish Borders. Wild Justice helped fund a successful judicial review by the Stobo Residents Action Group (see here) to try and save this habitat from a giant Sitka spruce plantation. The Scottish Government conceded the petition for judicial review in September 2024 before going to court, cancelling the taxpayer funded £2 million contract after realising that vast areas (potentially up to 400 hectares) had been blanket sprayed with herbicide (see here), in August 2023.
It strongly seems to me that government body Scottish Forestry, True North Real Asset Partners (managing the Stobo scheme and the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund in Guernsey) and forestry agents Pryor and Rickett Silviculture were all desperate to avoid an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which was successfully ‘screened out’ in January 2024 before the contract was awarded in February 2024.
Scottish Forestry will apparently determine again if an EIA is required, claiming they will take into account ‘all other new relevant information’ (see here). At the moment all work at Stobo has been stopped by court order so any work is unlawful. The Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund (based in a tax haven) has now lodged a petition for judicial review with the Court of Session in Edinburgh (December 2024) to try and cancel the enforcement notice by Scottish Forestry (see here).
It turns out that the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) were ‘advising’ Pryor and Rickett Silviculture (see here) and True North Real Asset Partners (see here), on how to ‘improve the suitability of the proposed planting area for black grouse’, despite the RSPB, reputable ecologists and NatureScot explaining that black grouse would leave due to the forestry scheme.
Scottish Forestry appear to have relied on recommendations (that were subsequently partially implemented) by the GWCT to help conclude that black grouse would not be significantly affected by the scheme so an EIA could be avoided. If an EIA was required, it would require a much more rigorous assessment of the ecological impacts of the proposal and require further public consultation which probably would have resulted in the scheme being no longer viable for the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund.
GWCT report, January 2022
Pryor and Rickett Silviculture were seemingly keen to follow up the GWCT’s advice on predator control, so applied to NatureScot for a fox hunting licence with nineteen dogs, but this was refused. The intended fox hunting was supposedly to reduce black grouse predation (see here), but seemed to be more for sporting than conservation purposes. NatureScot explained that there was no evidence of long-term benefit from the proposed fox hunting. As with the RSPB’s prediction of lek extinction at Stobo, NatureScot stated black grouse ‘tend to leave’ plantations of the kind proposed at Stobo:
How Scottish Forestry makes questionable claims to avoid EIAs
Virtually all woodland creation schemes in Scotland avoid an EIA, with just 4 EIAs for 729 ‘conifer option’ screening applications since 2015, according to a FoI response in March 2023 (see here). This appears to be due to forestry managers implausibly claiming that no significant negative environmental impacts will result from an environmentally destructive forestry scheme.
If a significant impact is said to result for woodland creation proposals above a certain size, an EIA is typically needed. Scottish Forestry simply repeats its contracted ecologist’s claims in its ‘screening opinion’ to determine no EIA is required prior to awarding a forestry contract. As a result, tens of thousands of hectares of priority wildlife habitats outside protected sites across Scotland are being damaged or destroyed by commercial forestry. These priority habitats and species are those that Scottish Ministers consider to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation in Scotland. Under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (see here), all public bodies in Scotland have a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their responsibilities. Scottish Forestry appear to be either unaware or negligent in its failure to deliver this duty.
At Stobo, ecologists Mabbett and Associates, now called Arthian Ltd (see here) in its ‘EIA update letter’ (January 2024) claimed the scheme ‘will not have a significant impact’:
Scottish Forestry used this statement to justify their decision to approve the scheme without an EIA and award a £2 million grant for a giant, mostly Sitka spruce plantation of nearly seven square kilometres at Stobo, claiming this scheme was ‘not likely to cause a significant negative environmental effect to black grouse’:
Scottish Forestry repeated this claim for golden eagles (Stobo is a significant area for this species) and for priority habitats such as upland heathland, purple moor grass and rush pasture and numerous other features of nature conservation value in its EIA ‘screening opinion’. These habitats host priority species such as the small pearl-bordered fritillary butterfly, hen harrier, cuckoo, reed bunting and red grouse. Scottish Forestry also claimed that it was unlikely there would be significant negative environmental impacts from the cumulative effects of neighbouring proposed or completed woodland creation schemes, resulting in fourteen square kilometres of contiguous moorland being fragmented by nearly ten square kilometres of predominantly commercial coniferous forestry.
Map of the proposed woodland
For the Stobo plantation, of the planted area, 72% is Sitka spruce, with a further 10% of commercial Scots pine and Douglas fir, so commercial coniferous forestry amounts to 82% of the planted area. The map below does not show three new plantations to the north, west, south or a proposed plantation to the east, creating a giant spruce plantation across what was previously contiguous moorland.
Supposed final planting plan for Stobo. Blue indicates Sitka spruce, green Douglas fir and orange commercial Scots pine. Native broadleaves are indicated by brown while light grey indicates open areas.
Scottish Forestry claimed there would be 246.4 hectares of open ground within 1.5 km of the lek, but omitted to mention that this remaining open ground would be heavily fragmented by 463.6 hectares of trees. Furthermore, much of this open area within 1.5km is sub-optimal habitat on exposed hilltops and ridges far from the lek and mostly unplantable anyway.
Extract from Scottish Forestry’s ‘screening opinion’ dated 18 January 2024
Black grouse need large areas of contiguous moorland – typically bog, dry dwarf shrub heath, marshy and acid grasslands. A 2014 report (No. 741) commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage (see here) – now NatureScot – found that in the Southern Uplands only 5% of moorland patches less than ten square kilometres (1,000 hectares) were occupied by black grouse:
The approximate location of the Stobo estate is circled red below, showing its relative isolation to other leks, several of which have since become extinct in the last ten years:
Map from Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 741 (2014). Stobo in red circle.
The ‘Black Grouse Habitat Management Area’ for Stobo
The forestry scheme applicants proposed a ‘Black Grouse Habitat Management Area’ within 1.5km of the lek to supposedly ‘mitigate’ the effect of planting nearly seven square kilometres of moorland. The stated open area within this habitat management area is only 84 hectares.
The GWCT stated in its January 2022 report for the forestry applicants that ‘the planting will likely have a significant impact on the visual landscape, land use and ground nesting birds’ and the planning process would ‘recommend measures to mitigate against any impacts of significance’:
The GWCT then stated later in the report that ‘the inclusion of low-density mixed broadleaves and areas of open ground within the site are unlikely to sufficiently limit the impacts of the planting plan on wading birds or black grouse’, then suggesting a ‘comprehensive predator control programme as part of any mitigation measures’:
A later report by the GWCT (March 2023) suggests that efforts had been made to increase the open area within 1.5km of the lek, recommending that 40% open ground should be retained ‘within the vicinity of a lek site’:
The final open area within 1.5 km of the lek could be around 35%, based on the 246.4 hectares in Scottish Forestry’s screening opinion, but much of this area is relatively unsuitable due to fragmentation and being on exposed ridges. The RSPB explains to the forestry agents (red text below) that the GWCT’s recommendation of 40% open ground applies to whole plantations, not just the ‘habitat management area’:
Another report (No. 545) commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage and published in 2013 (see here), investigating habitat use by black grouse in Scotland, states:
The findings in this report (and other papers) suggest that schemes such as at Stobo will be unviable for black grouse. Areas around leks were on average, two-thirds moorland and the report suggests ‘a lekking group will likely require a continuous moorland area adjacent to forest habitats, that is at least five square kilometres’ (i.e. at least 500 hectares). At Stobo, Scottish Forestry has ignored both the large area of moorland required for an individual lekking group and the cumulative impacts of multiple woodland creation schemes. The 2014 Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 741 refers to ‘little consideration for landscape-scale conservation’:
The same report provides recommendations for conservation measures in Southern Scotland, suggesting that heather moorlands with leks should be ‘adequately protected from any future significant change in land use’:
This report also points out that ‘predator management in isolation may not prevent further declines without the provision and maintenance of suitable habitats’:
Herbicide treated moorland drained for Sitka spruce planting, Stobo Hope.
Did the GWCT advice influence Scottish Forestry into avoiding an EIA?
It appears that Scottish Forestry relied on specious mitigation measures such as a negligible reduction in planted area, predator control and a ‘Black Grouse Habitat Management Area’, to claim that the Stobo scheme was ‘not likely to cause a significant negative effect to black grouse’, thus avoiding an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The decision by Scottish Forestry to not have an EIA would of course, seem to have huge financial benefits for the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund, as the hundreds of hectares of moorland that the Stobo lek needed could now instead be planted with Sitka spruce. Furthermore, Scottish Forestry incorrectly claimed the cumulative impacts of several forestry schemes were taken into account, despite research suggesting habitat connectivity with other large moorland areas was required for long-term viability of black grouse metapopulations.
Herbicide treated moorland, planted with Sitka spruce, Stobo Hope.
Did GWCT staff ignore its own research to help forestry managers and Scottish Foresty avoid an EIA?
The two Scottish Natural Heritage Reports (Nos 545 and 741) referenced in this blog showing woodland schemes like that at Stobo would be unviable for black grouse, were both authored by the GWCT. Two of the authors of these reports, Dave Baines and Phil Warren, are widely acknowledged as leading experts on black grouse with over 60 years of combined experience, but it is unclear if they were invited to advise on the Stobo proposals which were authored by the GWCT Advisor, Scotland. After several email exchanges between the GWCT and Pryor and Rickett Silviculture, the GWCT Advisor, Scotland eventually concluded in May 2023 that ‘I believe you now have a considered design that goes as far as practical in terms of accommodating for black grouse’.
This is far from a glowing endorsement of the proposals or indeed any kind of acknowledgement that there would be no significant impacts on black grouse.
Although some of the SNH reports’ content may be biased in favour of shooting interests, they do appear to demonstrate general habitat needs and the extent of these habitats required for black grouse.
Why did Scottish Forestry choose to ignore the RSPB’s prediction that lek extinction would result from the scheme?
The RSPB also stated there was a failure to assess the impact of the loss of habitat and nesting sites through afforestation, explaining that the forestry agents in their ‘woodland operational plan’ incorrectly asserted that the RSPB’s issues with the scheme had been resolved.
Heather moorland destroyed by herbicide, Stobo Hope. Picture courtesy of Ted Leeming photography (Copyright protected)
Harry Humble, CEO of True North Real Asset Partners, was probably very pleased with the GWCT’s advice, claiming in the Scotsman (see here) that ‘more than 140ha of the scheme has been designed specifically to favour black grouse, with an enhanced mix of species and open space provision in line with best practice derived from decades of research’.
Why did the GWCT appear not to tell Pryor and Rickett Silviculture and True North Real Asset Partners that its own research over many years showed the proposed Stobo scheme would likely cause black grouse lek extinction, instead of saying: ‘Ibelieve you now have a considered design that goes as far as practical in terms of accommodating for black grouse’?
Another exercise in ‘Greenwashing’ by Scottish Forestry?
Whoever invested in the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund must have been very pleased that Scottish Forestry decided to ignore the RSPB and seemingly disregard readily available, published black grouse research, such as that by the GWCT, commissioned by what is now NatureScot, demonstrating black grouse disappear from areas planted for commercial coniferous forestry. Hundreds of hectares of spruce at Stobo and on neighbouring land was in part permitted by Scottish Forestry under the false premise that the Stobo woodland creation scheme was ‘not likely to cause a significant negative environmental effect to black grouse’. This incorrect claim by Scottish Forestry and similarly incorrect claims relating to impacts on other wildlife and important habitats for many other woodland creation sites must certainly have helped financial gains through land values, carbon credits and funds in offshore tax havens, but sets a terrible precedent for our disappearing moorland landscapes.
The National newspaper published a special report on Monday 16 December 2024 entitled, ‘Why are birds of prey still being killed in Scotland despite new legislation?’, with a particular focus on the Cairngorms National Park.
It’s reproduced below.
SCOTLAND passed the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill earlier this year, introducing a licensing scheme for the grouse shooting industry in a bid to end the illegal killing of birds of prey.
The first licenses were issued this past summer, and while considered a blueprint for tougher legislation across the UK – people are still killing birds of prey on grouse moors, which is not an easy thing to do.
Guilty parties must have access to a vehicle, equipment such as a firearm, opportunity and motive.
“This isn’t people traveling from towns and cities going up onto our hills and randomly killing birds of prey. These are targeted offences,” Ian Thomson, investigations manager for the RSPB, told The National.
But why? And who would do this?
Why are grouse moor shootings still taking place?
A Hen Harrier disappeared in February. A buzzard was shot in Perthshire in mid-May. An osprey was shot in the Glen Doll area in August. A dead golden eagle was found in a plastic bag near Loch Rusky in November.
In the last 15 years, more than 1500 birds of prey have been killed, with 57 convictions. However, the majority of these sentences are suspended, and only one person has been jailed.
Most of the evidence gathered by investigators is from satellite tags, fitted to allow conservationists to monitor the movements around the country.
The technology is estimated to be about 97% reliable, and “very rarely suffers some sort of technical function”, according to Thomson.
“Often we believe that there is strong evidence that supports the fact that these birds are being shot often at night, the tags destroyed, and the carcass is disposed of,” Thomson said.
The RSPB investigations team assists Police Scotland by speaking to local land managers and liaising with the community if a tag stops working. When asked why anyone would target the birds, even with the new legislation in place, Thomson said: “The killings are being undertaken by people who are working on the land.
“That’s the reality, and the vast majority of raptor persecution offenses occurring in Scotland are linked to management for kind of game bird shooting and particularly grouse shooting.
“There are many layers of evidence that support that.
“First of all, the location of the incidents that are found. Whether its birds shot, birds poisoned, or nests destroyed, these are all subject to police investigations.
“A significant proportion of people convicted for raptor persecution offenses have been gamekeepers,” Thomson shared.
RSPB data shows that at least 54% of all confirmed incidents in the last 10 years (2014-2023) have been linked to land managed for pheasant, partridge and grouse shooting.
The association of these crimes with the gamebird industry is also evidenced by criminal court records. Of all individuals convicted of bird of prey persecution related offences from 2009 to 2023, 75% were connected to the gamebird shooting industry and 68% were gamekeepers.
The Angus Glens crime hotspot
Angus Glens in the Cairngorms is a hotspot for the number of raptor persecution in Scotland, with the Highlands having 69 since 2009.
There have been multiple confirmed incidents occurring on several estates in the area. This includes many poisoning incidents using chemicals whose possession was long banned, repeated illegal misusing abuse of crow traps and pole traps, shootings and destruction of nests.
Earlier this year, NatureScot placed restrictions on an estate on the edge of the Cairngorms National Park for three years following evidence of bird poisoning on the property.
Thomson said there had been 10 suspicious disappearances of satellite tags on birds of prey in the Angus Glen in the last 15 years.
There has been a peregrine, and an osprey shot since the start of the shooting season in Angus Glens this year, which Thomson described as “worrying”.
The law as it has stood since 2012 has been serious liability, which means landowners are responsible for the actions of their employees and the land.
So are landowners aware of the circumstances surrounding raptor persecutions on their land?
A wall of silence
The first licenses under the new bill were approved this past July, but Thomson noted there would have been no need for it had the industry “taken possession of this problem decades ago”.
He added: “I think had the industry rooted out criminals, then we wouldn’t have needed this sort of legislation moved on.
“We are in a situation where some Victorian management practices towards birds of prey persist. It really is time that the shooting industry got into the 21st century.”
Thomson said it was rare for estates to report raptor persecutions.
When asked whether estates may be protecting or turning a blind eye to those who target birds of prey, Thomson said he could not confirm but he and his team frequently hear of peer pressure within estates to keep reporting low, adding that crimes are rarely reported by the industry.
“The problem is the game keeping industry is used to operating a bit like a closed shop,” Thomson said.
“It’s very difficult. There is no whistleblowing culture, and it would be fantastic if organizations representing gamekeepers set up a scheme where people could report incidents taking place and those are passed on to the police.
“But that just never seems to happen. Exceedingly rare truths are told.”
Thomson revealed that gamekeepers come to the team sharing their worries and are “terrified” to come forward.
“They say to us this information can’t come from me because I may lose my job and I may lose my friends and I may lose my hobby. People are under considerable pressure to keep their mouths shut,” he said.
“Either people won’t see anything or there is just a culture of denial.”
Thomson described “efforts to deny or downplay” incidents, and said that when satellite tags start to disappear, people blame “imaginary wind farms” or factors, dismissing science and evidence of crimes.
“It’s a mix of cultural misinformation, a wall of silence and complete denial”, Thomson added.
ENDS
For those who are sick to the back teeth of birds of prey being illegally killed on grouse moors, you might want to sign this new petition from Wild Justice calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting – HERE.
Natural England has today posted a blog updating the status of three brood meddled satellite-tagged hen harriers, which had previously been reported as ‘dead, awaiting post mortem’ (x 1) and ‘Missing, Fate Unknown’ (x 2).
A post mortem on the dead hen harrier has concluded it died from natural causes. The two ‘missing’ hen harriers have been found dead, and both corpses contained shotgun pellets.
I’ll reproduce Natural England’s blog, below, then I’ll comment on the content of Natural England’s blog, then on the extraordinary (or not) response from the Moorland Association.
An illegally killed hen harrier. Photo by Ruth Tingay
UPDATE ON THE DEATHS OF THREE TAGGED HEN HARRIERS
Natural England blog, 18 December 2024.
Hen harriers remain rare in England, with a welcome increase in their population over the last few years stalling in 2024. Poor weather and food availability may cause their numbers to fluctuate, but ongoing illegal killing remains a serious threat to the species’ survival in England.
Natural England (NE) has recently received confirmation that police investigations into the deaths of two tagged hen harriers have concluded, and we can now be confident that releasing information relating to these cases will not jeopardise the course of justice. We have also recently received final post-mortem information for a third tagged bird. This blog serves to document their fate.
R2-M1-23, #213927
Juvenile male harrier R2-M1-23 was tagged in July 2023, at a release site in Cumbria as part of the Brood Management Trial, before heading to spend the winter in North Devon (a link to our monitoring spreadsheet for all NE tagged hen harriers can be found here). On 29 February 2024, R2-M1-23’s tag recorded a very low body temperature, indicating death. As is standard procedure, NE’s Enforcement and Appeals Team (NE E&A) informed the police of the discrepancies in the tracking data. On 5 March under direction from police, specialist NE E&A staff were deployed to search for the missing hen harrier. R2-M1-23 was found in a small clearing between agricultural fields, his tag clearly visible, and his body showing some signs of predation.
The carcass of R2-M1-23 was photographed and collected, then sent to the Institute of Zoology at Zoological Society of London (ZSL) for a post-mortem examination. Poor body condition, masses growing in the crop, and other internal signs, indicate that he carried a number of common diseases. The role of these in his death cannot be fully quantified, but R2-M1-23 is considered to have died of natural causes.
R2-F2-20 #55144 + R3-F1-22 #213921a
Two female hen harriers R2-F2-20 and R3-F1-22 were tagged in 2020 and 2022 at release sites in northern England as part of the Brood Management Trial. During the winter of 2022 both settled into the same roost site in the North Pennines, monitored by NE Hen Harrier Team field staff under the brood management trial partnership agreement.
On 7 December 2022, R2-F2-20’s tag stopped transmitting. One week later, on 14 December, R3-F1-22’s tag also went offline. Leading up to this both birds had been behaving naturally. With the full cooperation of local land managers, numerous searches were made by police and NE E&A staff around the last transmission site, nearby roost, and in areas used by each bird, but unfortunately neither was found in the weeks that followed.
Further intermittent transmissions were received from both tags between January and April 2023, but further ground searches were unsuccessful until 10 April, when R3-F1-22 was recovered by NE field staff with the assistance of the local gamekeeper and estate manager. Her remains were collected by a Wildlife Crime (police) Officer and sent to ZSL for a post-mortem examination. On 25 June 2023, R2-F2-20 finally transmitted again; she was located 4 days later by a quickly mustered multi-agency search team, and also sent to ZSL for a post-mortem.
After months laying dead, both bodies were highly degraded, but three suspected lead shotgun pellets were found within the body of R2-F2-20, and two in the body of R3-F1-22. The level of decomposition of the bodies led ZSL to conclude that it was not possible to explicitly link the death of either bird to the pellets. NWCU could take the case no further, but the presence of pellets suggests ongoing illegal persecution of hen harriers in northern England.
Detective Inspector Mark Harrison from the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) said:
“The work that Natural England, and other organisations do to satellite tag these birds has given the police an opportunity to assess what is going on and where the greatest threats are. We have developed new procedures to assess each incident referred to us so that we can try to establish what has happened and to give the police the best chance of recovering evidence when a crime has occurred. It also means that we can be proactive and target repeat crime locations. It is working and there has been a significant decrease in crimes involving tagged birds this year. Obviously, birds do die naturally, but 2 out of 3 of these rare birds was a victim of crime. That is unacceptable and we will do everything we can to prevent further crimes and prosecute offenders.”
Natural England’s Hen Harrier Team monitor, tag and track these rare and threatened birds to support their recovery as set out in the Hen Harrier Action Plan. We are grateful to partner organisations and land managers who support our work, and will continue to work closely with the National Wildlife Crime Unit in their efforts to investigate bird of prey crime. In the interests of transparency, we publish the status of all tagged hen harriers on our tracking update page, and aim to share details of how birds died when possible. News of deliberate killing of tagged hen harriers is always hard for our team to hear, but it does not discourage us from our continued work on hen harrier recovery.
ENDS
The news of brood meddled hen harrier (R2-M1-23, #213927) found dead in North Devon on 5 March 2024 that NE has now confirmed died of natural causes, first came to light in NE’s August 2024 tracking data update that I blogged about on 10 September 2024 (see here). Quite why it’s taken nine months for its cause of death to be publicised is beyond me.
This harrier was one of five that had been found dead during 2024 and for which we were awaiting post mortem results. I note that NE has still not publicised the post mortem results of the other four dead harriers.
This harrier was not included in my running tally of persecuted/’missing’ hen harriers (currently numbering 130 dead/’missing’ birds since 2018) because the circumstances of its death weren’t known. Now we know it died of natural causes, it definitely won’t be added to the list. I await the post mortem results of the other four birds with interest.
The two brood meddled hen harriers (R2-F2-20 #55144 and R3-F1-22 #213921a) were previously listed as ‘Missing, Fate Unknown’ and were included on my list of dead/’missing’ hen harriers.
They both ‘disappeared’ two years ago, in December 2022, within days of each other, from the same winter roost site in the North Pennines. This is the first time that NE has announced their corpses were later found (one in April 2023 and the other in June 2023). Why on earth has it taken NE 18 months and 20 months respectively to reveal that (a) both birds had been found dead, and (b) both corpses contained shotgun pellets (3 and 2 pellets respectively)?
The post mortem results of these two harriers are smothered in caution: “The level of decomposition of the bodies led ZSL to conclude that it was not possible to explicitly link the death of either bird to the pellets“. The key word here is ‘explicitly’. The fact the two corpses contained shotgun pellets shows that they were both definitely the victims of wildlife crime, as stated clearly by Detective Inspector Mark Harrison from the NWCU’s Hen Harrier Taskforce. The fact that both birds had vanished from the same winter roost on a grouse moor in the North Pennines, within a week of one another, points to a pretty obvious set of circumstances to anyone looking at this objectively.
The Moorland Association (the grouse owners’ lobby group) has responded to Natural England’s blog with yet another blatant and shameful attempt at misrepresentation:
In the Moorland Association’s second paragraph, where it purports to quote from the Natural England blog, the Moorland Association blog author has not only removed the context of the post mortem reports, but has also removed several of Natural England’s words, resulting in an entirely distorted (and thus false) ‘quote’.
Natural England wrote:
“The level of decomposition of the bodies led ZSL to conclude that it was not possible to explicitly link the death of either bird to the [shotgun] pellets”.
The Moorland Association wrote:
“This successful teamwork contrasts with today’s infantile press statement from Natural England which manages to contradict itself by saying “it is not possible to link the death of either bird” with illegal activity while also saying that their deaths “serve of evidence of ongoing killing”“.
The Moorland Association has removed the word “explicitly”, removed any reference to shotgun pellets, and then completely fabricated another ‘quote’ from Natural England (“serve of evidence of ongoing killing”).
The Moorland Association blog author is not identified but this level of distortion and misrepresentation has all the hallmarks of Andrew Gilruth, the Moorland Association’s current CEO, who has somewhat of a track record for this kind of shoddy behaviour.
Interestingly, the Moorland Association published its response prior to the Natural England blog being published, presumably after having sight of what Natural England was about to publish.
The Moorland Association has since revised its statement, once Natural England’s blog went live. Here’s how it currently looks:
Even if Andrew Gilruth didn’t write this snidey guff, you’d think as CEO he’d be responsbible for overseeing/approving whatever appears on the Moorland Association’s website.
For how much longer will he remain in post, I wonder? The Moorland Association’s reputation is already in tatters after Gilruth was expelled from the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG) earlier this year after the police accused him of “wasting time and distracting from the real work” of the Hen Harrier Taskforce (see here).
Natural England is currently undertaking a formal review of its ludicrous hen harrier brood meddling sham, with its findings due by the end of this month. Those findings will influence DEFRA’s decision on whether the sham is allowed to continue.
The Moorland Association has already stated it wants brood meddling licences to be issued as a routine part of grouse moor management.
With at least 130 killed/’missing’ hen harriers since the brood meddling sham trial began in 2018, and the Moorland Association’s continual denial and misrepresentation of the bleedin’ obvious, we’ll all be very interested in Natural England’s findings.
Meanwhile, for those who can no longer stomach what’s happening to hen harriers on grouse moors across the country, Wild Justice has another petition calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting. Please sign it HERE.
UPDATE 5th March 2025: Natural England quietly releases intriguing grouse moor location where two shot brood meddled hen harriers found dead (here)
Over the last 17 years or so, satellite-tracking technology has revolutionised our understanding of not only hen harrier ecology, but also the persistent, illegal killing of these birds on driven grouse moors across the UK.
Two organisations have been at the forefront of hen harrier satellite tracking – Natural England and the RSPB (with significant help from raptor study groups and others).
Satellite-tagged hen harrier. Photo by RSPB
For several years now, Natural England has been intermittently publishing the fates of the hen harriers it’s team has tagged (see here), but only with vague explanations about its definition of the category, ‘Missing, Fate Unknown’ (e.g. see here).
Of course, since then, a significant academic paper published in 2019 demonstrated what we all already knew – that patterns of satellite-tagged hen harrier disappearances suggested widespread illegal killing on British grouse moors (see here).
A further paper, published in 2023 and this time analysing the fates of hen harriers tagged by the RSPB, reached the same conclusion (see here).
Since 2018, I have been publishing details about the confirmed/suspected deaths of satellite-tagged (and a few untagged) hen harriers using data from both Natural England and the RSPB (this list currently stands at 130 illegally killed/’missing’ hen harriers although there are still more to add; those data are currently being withheld from the public – see here).
Now, for the first time, the RSPB has launched an interactive map hub showing the fates of hen harriers its team has satellite-tagged since 2014 (currently up to October 2024).
The RSPB’s interactive database includes the fates of 178 of the 226 hen harriers satellite-tagged so far. Some dead hen harriers are not included as they are subject to ongoing police investigations. The hen harriers that are still alive and are currently being tracked are also not included, for what should be obvious reasons.
Screen grab of the RSPB’s new interactive HH map hub
The interactive map hub allows users to filter the ‘fates’ of the RSPB’s tagged hen harriers into five different categories:
Confirmed Illegal persecution
Stop no malfunction (where the bird has disappeared in suspicious circumstances)
Natural
Unknown
Tag failure/expired
Detailed explanations of each of these categories are provided on the hub.
Users are also able to zoom in to the map to show the general area where a harrier died and you can manipulate the map to show terrain etc.
This facility is a useful and welcome addition to the public record on the fates of individual satellite-tracked hen harriers in the UK. I’m not sure it provides us with any wider, big-picture information that we don’t already know but that’s probably not the intention behind this interactive hub anyway. What it does do is provide the public with a level of detail to help them understand the scale of satellite-tagging efforts on the UK’s hen harriers and thus the veracity of the extent of the ongoing illegal killing of this species on many driven grouse moors.
South Yorkshire Police have issued the following press release (dated 9 December 2024):
WITNESS APPEAL AFTER BIRD SHOT IN PEAK DISTRICT
We are appealing for information after a protected bird was reportedly shot in Bradfield, near Sheffield.
On 25 August, a dead raven was found in a field near Agden Side Road, Bradfield, in the Peak District.
The incident was reported to the RSPB who collected the bird. An x-ray of the bird showed that it had been shot.
It is believed the bird was shot between 24 August and 25 August.
Since the incident, officers have been following several lines of enquiry and we are now appealing for anybody who may have any information about the incident to contact us.
You can report information to us online via live chat or by calling 101, quoting incident number 662 of 9 September 2024.
The Agden Side Road lies just beyond the boundary of two grouse moors (Strines and Broomhead) in the Peak District National Park.
This part of the Peak District National Park, dominated by land managed for driven grouse shooting, has a long and sordid history of raptor persecution incidents (e.g. see here, here, here, here, here etc).
Prosecutions are rare, largely due to the difficulty of identifying a named individual to link to a crime that has taken place in a relatively remote landscape with few witnesses.
This is certainly not helped by South Yorkshire Police, who rarely cover themselves in glory with timely investigations, although to be fair unless the shooting of this raven was witnessed and recorded, the police have little to go on.
Yes, the usual suspects will be in the frame but for a prosecution the police need evidence – they can’t just prosecute on the basis of recurrent past criminal behaviour in the area. Although waiting three and a half months to issue an appeal for witnesses, as they’ve done in this case, won’t help.
This scenario happens over and over again in areas managed for driven grouse shooting, even inside our National Parks, and has been happening for decades. Raptors are routinely shot, trapped and poisoned and the criminals get away with their crimes time after time after time.
This is one (of several) reasons why Wild Justice is currently running a petition calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting. The petition currently stands at 30,000 signatures but it needs 100,000 to trigger a parliamentary debate. If you’d like to sign it, please click HERE.
UPDATE 9 June 2025: Another Raven found shot dead next to grouse moor in notorious persecution hotspot in Peak District National Park (here)
Back in July, the Moorland Association announced that it had been removed from the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG), the national police-led ‘partnership’ that’s supposed to tackle illegal raptor persecution (see here for announcement).
Photo via Suffolk Police
The expulsion appeared to have been triggered by a Moorland Association blog, where the grouse moor owners’ lobby group looked to be trying to sabotage the work of the police’s new National Hen Harrier Taskforce, being led by the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) which I wrote about here, although later FoI documents revealed that prior to that blog being published, the NWCU had already warned Moorland Association CEO Andrew Gilruth that they thought he was “wasting time and distracting from the real work” of the Hen Harrier Taskforce (see here).
The Moorland Association then claimed to be “perplexed” and “bemused” by the expulsion in a hilariously distorted rebuttal blog.
Up until now, we hadn’t seen a copy of the expulsion letter written to Andrew Gilruth by the Head of the NWCU so we only had the Moorland Association’s typically contorted version of events.
After a further couple of rounds of FoI requests, the expulsion letter has finally been released. The reasons for the expulsion are laid out very clearly and expose the Moorland Association’s claims of being “perplexed” and “bemused” as being what I see as yet another example of disingenuous spin – a skill for which I consider Andrew Gilruth has somewhat of a reputation from his days at GWCT.
Here’s the expulsion letter/email:
The expulsion letter refers to alleged breaches of conduct against the terms of reference of the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG), the so-called ‘partnership’ in which Andrew Gilruth represented the Moorland Association, having taken over the role after Amanda Anderson left the Moorland Association at the end of 2023.
To fully understand the NWCU’s rationale for writing the expulsion letter, you need to see those RPPDG terms of reference. Here they are:
It seems that the NWCU’s justification for concluding that Gilruth had “brought the credibility of the RPPDG into disrepute” was well-evidenced and entirely reasonable.
There’s something else of interest in those terms of reference:
If an individual is removed, the organisation they represent should seek to identify a suitable replacement. If no replacement is found, then the organisation could be removed from participating,
and
Organisations that have been removed can reapply if a suitable candidate is identified.
What isn’t clear at the moment is whether it’s the Moorland Association that has been expelled from the RPPDG or whether it’s just the CEO, Andrew Gilruth.
I don’t know whether the Moorland Association has identified another representative to replace Gilruth but I understand that a formal complaint has been made (predictable or what?!) about the expulsion, no doubt “wasting [more] time and distracting from the real work” of the Hen Harrier Taskforce and the RPPDG.
Back in September, an article appeared on the Birdguides website announcing the Hawk & Owl Trust’s withdrawal from the hen harrier brood meddling sham (see here), although the details were vague and I couldn’t find a statement on the Hawk & Owl Trust’s own website.
For new blog readers, hen harrier brood meddling was a 7-year conservation sham (2018-2024) sanctioned by DEFRA as part of its ludicrous ‘Hen Harrier Action Plan‘ and carried out by Natural England, in cahoots with the very industry responsible for the species’ catastrophic decline in England. In general terms, the plan involved the removal of hen harrier chicks from grouse moors, they were reared in captivity, then released back into the uplands just in time for the start of the grouse-shooting season to be illegally killed. It was plainly bonkers. For more background see here and here.
Hen harrier photo by Laurie Campbell
Two days ago the Hawk & Owl Trust published the following statement on its website (reproduced here as things have a habit of ‘disappearing’ from that site):
It’s a weird statement, first trying to justify the Hawk & Owl Trust’s involvement in this conservation sham by suggesting it took advice from three leading academics, forgetting to mention that one of those leading academics had been proposing a brood meddling trial for years (so he was hardly independent) and his university department was probably set to benefit financially from his involvement by receiving public money in the form of associated research grants. Oh, and also forgetting to mention that a Director of the Hawk & Owl Trust was also at the centre of the brood meddling sham and her organisation was also set to benefit financially by being paid for undertaking the brood meddling. Conflict of interest, much?
The statement then goes on to state that the Hawk & Owl Trust’s involvement came with conditions – including “a promise to end support if any illegal harm occurred“. This is a promise that the Hawk & Owl Trust broke over and over again, despite having many opportunities to honour it (e.g. here), including the killing of a hen harrier (Rowan) whose satellite tag the Hawk & Owl Trust had funded (see here, here, here, here, here and here).
The statement then attempts to minimise the Hawk & Owl Trust’s role in the sham by saying: “HAOT hasn’t directly carried out the initiative but has played a supportive role, offering insights and backing evidence-based solutions to balance wildlife conservation with human interests“.
Er, the Hawk & Owl Trust was directly involved in the brood meddling sham – its Chair, Philip Merricks, served on the Hen Harrier Brood Meddling Project Board, a position that brought with it all the associated responsibilities for the brood meddling sham, as detailed in this Natural England document:
It looks like the Hawk & Owl Trust is trying to re-write history here, but there’s no getting away from it – it was in up to its neck with the brood meddling sham right from the start, and it stayed there right through to the bitter end.
The final sentence in the Hawk & Owl Trust’s statement is just bizarre. Having spent the rest of the statement trying to play down its role and acknowledging that illegal persecution of hen harriers continues to be an issue, it says this:
“Future success depends on licences, funding, and cooperation between conservationists, land managers, and stakeholders, building on the foundation laid by the initiative“.
What licensing is that, then? The licences that the Moorland Association is so desperately keen for that would allow the brood meddling of hen harriers to continue as a routine part of grouse moor management, rather than just as part of a seven-year trial?
Or is the Hawk & Owl Trust suggesting that the licensing of grouse shooting is the way forward, where grouse shooting estates would have their licences revoked if raptor persecution crimes continued on that land?
It’s not clear to me whether the Hawk & Owl Trust is endorsing brood meddling as a long term solution or not. But who knows? And frankly, who cares? The Hawk & Owl Trust trashed its reputation and credibility amongst raptor conservationists by getting in to bed with the grouse shooting industry seven years ago. It could have got out of bed at any time but instead it chose to get further under the duvet, pulled a mask over its eyes and stuck in some earplugs. I don’t value its opinion any more.
You may remember back in July when the Moorland Association published an incendiary blog accusing the police-led Hen Harrier Taskforce of ‘by-passing regulation‘ on surveillance after the police asked grouse moor owners to sign a letter giving permission for the police to enter land at any time and use equipment for the prevention and detection of crime, including the installation of cameras, proximity alarms and other equipment on and around hen harrier nest and roost sites (see here).
It was that blog that led to the Moorland Association’s CEO, Andrew Gilruth, being booted off the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (here) – I’ll write more on that shortly.
At the time we only had the Moorland Association’s warped view of the police letters given to grouse moor owners in known hen harrier persecution hotspots, because the letters hadn’t been made public.
It’s taken a while but those police letters have now been released after several rounds of FoI requests to the National Police Chiefs’ Council.
Here’s a template of the first letter, given to grouse moor owners at the end of the first police visit. It’s pretty self-explanatory:
The grouse moor owners visited by the police in those hotspot areas were also handed an information sheet outlining the relevant legislation that officers in the Hen Harrier Taskforce could apply when investigating the illegal killing or sudden ‘disappearance’ of satellite-tagged hen harriers:
And here’s a template copy of the letter the grouse moor owners were invited to sign at the end of the visit, giving permission to the police to enter the land and use equipment for the purposes of crime prevention and detection. This is the letter the Moorland Association really objected to (although I daresay they were also pretty unhappy about everything else as well – they haven’t previously been held to account at this level and their sense of entitlement would have been severely damaged):
If I was a grouse moor owner, who professed to love hen harriers and abhor wildlife crime, and who claimed had no idea who was killing hen harriers on my land and argued that it must be armed trespassers because none of my upstanding and law-abiding staff would ever commit such atrocities, I’d be pretty pleased with this police activity and determination to catch the criminals.
The Moorland Association (a lobby group for grouse moor owners in northern England) has issued a statement in response to the Channel 4 exclusive last week that featured covertly-filmed RSPB footage showing three gamekeepers on an unnamed grouse moor, plotting to kill, and then apparently killing, an untagged hen harrier.
In its rattled response, the Moorland Association forgot to mention its deep concern about the appalling and seemingly criminal behaviour of those three gamekeepers, as so clearly exposed by the RSPB’s footage, and instead focused on its “deep concern” that the RSPB had passed the footage to Channel 4, claiming that the RSPB’s action “could materially affect a police investigation“.
On the contrary, the RSPB and Channel 4 took great care (a) not to name the grouse moor on which the gamekeepers had been filmed, not even the county in which it had been filmed, and (b) not to reveal the identities of the three gamekeepers caught red-handed. In addition, the Moorland Association was not privy to communications between the RSPB and the police about this footage.
I think it’s very revealing that the Moorland Association seems to be more concerned with protecting the image of the grouse shooting industry than rooting out the criminals within it.
Here’s the MA’s statement in full:
Screen grab from the Moorland Association website
The last line made me laugh out loud:
“The Moorland Association is keen to work closely with the Police to address this issue, but our efforts are being hampered by the actions of the RSPB“.
What efforts are those, then? And how, exactly, are those “efforts” being hampered by the release of that footage?
The Moorland Association should be grateful to the RSPB for its skill and tenacity in securing such clear evidence of what’s going on on that grouse moor, and no doubt on many other grouse moors, too. Surely, if the Moorland Association is so committed, as it claims, to a ‘zero tolerance’ policy against raptor persecution, it should be thanking the RSPB for demonstrating that (a) illegal raptor persecution is still going on, (b) where it’s going on and who’s doing it, and (c) how the crimes are being committed.
But then this is the organisation whose CEO, Andrew Gilruth, was recently booted off the national ‘partnership’ designed to tackle illegal raptor persecution in England and Wales (the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group – RPPDG), after the Moorland Association had published an inflammatory blog that looked to be an attempt to sabotage the National Wildlife Crime Unit’s (NWCU) new Hen Harrier Taskforce (see here).
That blog wasn’t a one-off incident either – we later learned that Gilruth had been ejected from the group for “wasting time and distracting from the real work” [of tackling raptor persecution] for some time, according to a senior police officer (see here).
I’m not the only one questioning the Moorland Association’s response. The Northern England Raptor Forum (NERF) published this statement about it. Well worth a read.
I suspect what’s really agitating the Moorland Association is the fact that this highly damaging footage/audio has been seen by millions of Channel 4 News viewers, many of whom would have been previously unaware of the damage being caused by the shameful driven grouse shooting industry.
Raptor Persecution UK 