Tag: hen harrier

New legislation to protect golden eagle, hen harrier & red kite in Scotland

WCA variation schedules Scotland 2013New legislation designed to provide greater legal protection in Scotland to golden eagles, hen harriers and red kites comes into force next Saturday (16th March 2013).

The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (Variation of Schedules A1 and 1A) (Scotland) Order 2013 was signed by Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse on 4th Feb and laid before the Scottish Parliament on 6th Feb.

These Schedules (A1 and 1A) were added to the Wildlife & Countryside Act via the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, which means that, unfortunately, this legislation only applies in Scotland.

Schedule A1 lists birds species whose nests [that are habitually used] are protected at all times from being taken, damaged, destroyed or otherwise interfered with, including outside of the breeding season. Anyone intentionally or recklessly doing any of the above has committed an offence. To date, only the white-tailed eagle has been listed on Schedule A1.

Schedule 1A lists bird species which are protected from harassment. Species listed on this Schedule are considered to be at risk of harassment that is intended to prevent them from breeding. Anyone  intentionally or recklessly harassing a species listed on this Schedule has committed an offence. To date, only the white-tailed eagle has been listed on Schedule 1A.

Following a government consultation in 2008-2009 (!), three more species will be included as of next Saturday:

Schedule A1 (protected nests and nest sites): white-tailed eagle; golden eagle

Schedule 1A (birds protected from harassment at any time, not just during breeding season): white-tailed sea eagle; golden eagle; hen harrier; red kite

It seems strange that the hen harrier hasn’t been listed on Schedule A1, given the known issues with deliberate nest destruction, as indeed with the goshawk. Nevertheless, it’s good to see greater protection for golden eagles, hen harriers and red kites, even though this is only ‘paper protection’ – the problem with enforcement of the legislation still remains.

A copy of the new legislation can be read here: Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (Variation of Schedules A1 and 1A) (Scotland) Order 2013

Landowners & gamekeepers claim ‘misrepresentation’ on BBC’s The One Show

One-Show-smallScottish Land and Estates and the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association have written a letter of complaint to the BBC, claiming ‘misrepresentation’ on The One Show programme.

The programme (see here and here) included a feature on golden eagle persecution and during a studio interview, the RSPB’s Stuart Benn laid the blame firmly at the door of gamekeepers on Scottish grouse moors.

Doug McAdam, Chief Exec of Scottish Land & Estates, took great exception to that statement and wrote a hilarious letter of complaint, on behalf of SLE and SGA, to The One Show’s executive editor, Sandy Smith.

Here is his letter: SLE SGA complaint about BBC One Show

According to dear old Doug, there have only been four dead golden eagles found since 2010 and no charges [for these deaths] have been brought against anyone involved in grouse moor management. Conveniently, he failed to include the other known incidents of dead raptors turning up on grouse moors since 2010 (including white-tailed eagles, red kites, hen harriers, buzzards, short-eared owls, sparrowhawks, peregrines, kestrels), or the critically-injured golden eagle found shot and left to die on a grouse moor, or indeed the satellite-tagged raptors (particularly golden eagles and hen harriers) who have all gone ‘missing’ after their last known signal was received from, er, a grouse moor. There may well be more of these ‘missing’ birds but of course we’re no longer allowed to hear about them after the introduction of the new PAW Scotland ‘protocol’ that aims to keep these incidents away from the public’s gaze (see here).

Apart from trying to play down the extent of persecution incidents on grouse moors, and inferring that a lack of criminal convictions is a good indicator that gamekeepers are not involved with the illegal killing of golden eagles on grouse moors, Doug goes on to emphasise the SLE’s involvement with PAW Scotland, as though membership of that ‘partnership’ should be a measure of good behaviour. We’ve all seen how effective these ‘partnerships’ can be, following the near-extinction of breeding hen harriers on English grouse moors during the six-year Hen Harrier Dialogue ‘partnership’ designed to resolve the conflict. Indeed, three raptor conservation organisations have now resigned from that particular ‘partnership’ because they recognised it could be used as a convenient political cover by certain organisations with grouse-shooting interests.

Doug makes an astonishing claim about the PAW Scotland partnership: “Our combined efforts with the police, rural communities, the RSPB and over 120 other relevant stakeholders have been universally acknowledged as a key factor in reducing the number of raptor persecution incidents“.

Talk about misleading! For a start, there are not 120 ‘relevant stakeholders’ in relation to addressing raptor persecution. Many of the stakeholders have absolutely no involvement in directly addressing raptor persecution – they are there to specifically address other types of wildlife crime such as poaching, theft of freshwater pearl mussels, bat persecution and badger persecution.

Secondly, where does this notion come from that work by PAW Scotland has been ‘universally acknowledged as a key factor in reducing the number of raptor persecution incidents’? Has it been ‘universally acknowledged’? We don’t think PAW Scotland has had any demonstrable impact whatsoever on the number of raptor persecution incidents – where’s the evidence? Perhaps by ‘universal’ he means those with a vested interest in having people think that illegal raptor persecution is being dealt with effectively (e.g. the police, SNH, Scottish Government, SLE, SGA etc etc).

Doug finishes by saying, “Owners of moorland estates all over Scotland look after golden eagles” (ahem) and he invites Sandy Smith to visit a grouse moor “to find out for yourself the valuable conservation measures being implemented“. Let’s hope Sandy takes him up on his offer. Ooh, which grouse moor to choose? We could give Sandy quite a few suggestions….

Sandy Smith responded with a letter of his own: One Show’s reply to SLE

He says he’s sent an email to all One Show staff and suppliers “asking them to ensure they don’t make assumptions about gamekeepers based on out of date or inaccurate assumptions“.

Interestingly, Sandy Smith was the former executive editor of Panorama – a programme recognised for its investigative journalism and an ability to differentiate between fact and PR. Let’s hope he’s taken those qualities with him to The One Show.

We’ve sent a letter to Sandy, giving him the URL of this blog, to ensure his staff are kept up to date and are not basing their work on inaccurate assumptions (spin). You may wish to do the same – send your email, marked for the attention of Sandy Smith, to: TheOneShowEmails@bbc.co.uk

If you think grouse moor owners and their gamekeepers need to be held to account for their activities, please sign this e-petition and share it with your friends and colleagues: SIGN HERE.

Here’s a photo showing how well golden eagles are looked after on some Scottish grouse moors. This one was found critically injured on Buccleuch Estate last aututmn – he had been shot and left to die, although it is not known on whose land he was shot. He is currently recuperating with the SSPCA after undergoing life-saving surgery. Needless to say, nobody has been charged for this crime.

The shot golden eagle undergoing emergency surgery

Third group walks out of hen harrier dialogue

HOT2The tide is turning….

The Hawk and Owl Trust has become the third group to walk out of the hen harrier dialogue process, following the recent resignations of the RSPB (here) and the Northern England Raptor Forum (here).

A full statement is expected during the week.

Well done to them – it’s good to see that this particular sham ‘partnership’ process will no longer be tolerated.

If you feel the same way, please sign and share this e-petition calling for the licensing of grouse moors and gamekeepers: sign here.

Hawk and Owl Trust website here

Northern England Raptor Forum walks out of Hen Harrier Dialogue process

In the last few days, many of us have been flabbergasted (or not) at the flat denials from several game-shooting industry representatives about the issue of illegal raptor persecution. Despite years, no, decades, of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, these industry leaders still refuse to accept the reality.

 In a way it’s good that they continue to display such open indifference because by doing so an increasingly-aware public are given an opportunity to see what the rest of us have been seeing for years. In the end, we firmly believe it will be the strength of public opinion that forces a change and finally puts an end to the decades of illegal killing. Nevertheless, as laughable as the industry’s excuses and explanations are, it is still frustrating to hear them because you know that as long as that’s what the leaders are thinking then the criminals within that sector won’t be inclined to stop the persecution.

nerf logo3So, take that sense of frustration you felt when you heard the latest denials, and multiply that by six years, and then add in the fact that over the same period the hen harrier breeding population has been reduced to a single pair in England, and it will come as no surprise to learn that the Northern England Raptor Forum (NERF) has resigned from the Hen Harrier Dialogue process. Indeed, you might well ask what took them so long!

For those who don’t know what the Hen Harrier Dialogue process is, you can read about it here. NERF, representing a suite of dedicated raptor study groups in northern England, has been involved in the Dialogue since day one, back in June 2006. Last summer, the RSPB were the first group to walk away from the process. Now NERF have walked, as of January 31st 2013. We understand that the Hawk and Owl Trust, the only other pro-raptor partner in the process, is still in it, for now at least.

Here are some excerpts from a NERF letter that leave no room to doubt their reasons for walking out:

Following the last meeting in June 2012, NERF members undertook a wide-ranging internal debate about continuing our involvement with the Hen Harrier Dialogue. At the conclusion of our discussions NERF members unanimously elected to resign from the Dialogue process with immediate effect. This decision has not been undertaken lightly. We believe that far from assisting the re-establishment of a viable and self-sustaining healthy English population of Hen Harriers that is free and able to share wild open spaces unmolested with red grouse the evidence reveals that the exact opposite has been achieved.

Despite many years of attempting to seek a resolution to the perceived conflict of interest between commercial driven grouse shooting and Hen Harriers, NERF can find no evidence of any progress towards that goal. Indeed the opposite is the case. In 2006 46 young fledged, four years later only 23 young fledged and in 2012 just one pair successfully reared young. Even the higher figure masks the reality that the successes are almost invariably located on the United Utilities Estate in Bowland or from nests that were guarded around the clock by volunteers. It should also be remembered that there is sufficient habitat in England to support 332 pairs. No matter how optimistic the analysis of the intervening years, this attempt at conflict resolution, from the Hen Harrier’s perspective, can only be judged to be a resounding failure.

It is the opinion of NERF members that our continued participation in the Dialogue lends an air of respectability to a process that is fundamentally flawed. The Dialogue was tasked with seeking conflict resolution to what is a shameful situation where a species is being illegally persecuted to oblivion simply because it is perceived to threaten the sporting interests of a very small minority of individuals. To achieve the required outcome NERF accepted that there needed to be compromise. However despite our best efforts we can find no evidence that some of those organisations that represent the grouse shooting industry have either a genuine intention to accept anything other than a zero upland population or the ability to guarantee that the grouse moor managers they represent will implement any strategy agreed through the Dialogue.

There is ample evidence to show this to be the case:

  • The English Hen Harrier population is so perilously low that there is no longer any conflict with commercial driven grouse shooting and yet the birds continue to be persecuted, as evidenced by the recent death of ‘Bowland Betty’ in the Yorkshire Dales.
  • The continued public denial by grouse moor managers that persecution is widespread within the industry gives NERF members no reason to believe that participation of the industry representatives is anything other than a political gesture intended to divert attention away from that very persecution being undertaken by their members.
  • The scientific modelling developed specifically to aid the search for a resolution was originally rejected by the shooting community and further modelling was undertaken at their behest. The resultant data emphatically show that two pairs of Hen Harriers can be accommodated on 5,000 acres without any commercial impact. Indeed the same data reports that the impact by three pairs is insignificant. This scientifically based model was rejected with a counter offer of one pair per 10,000 acres. This offer represents a 75% shift away from the science and it is difficult to see it as anything other than yet one more delaying tactic.
  • In an effort to reduce the potential impact of grouse chick predation diversionary feeding was trialled and shown to work. The proposed expansion to the scheme was rejected by several of the shooting organisations for no discernible reason. Once again the search for a solution was stalled.
  • The proposal to introduce a brood capture, cage and release scheme was always going to be unpalatable to raptor workers; nonetheless NERF was prepared to leave the proposal on the table for discussion once the population had returned to ‘carrying capacity’. Years after the scheme was initially proposed and with no actual progress being made the National Gamekeepers Organisation announced in 2012, the same year that only one pair nested successfully in England, that the scheme may need to be implemented as soon as two pairs, or one polygamous male and two females, attempt to breed on the same ground. Thus the brood capture, cage and release programme would be implemented when the English population reached three individuals, less than 0.5% of the ‘carrying capacity’ of 332 pairs. This is completely unacceptable not only to conservationists but to all right-minded people. Any future discussions in respect of that scheme were halted with that single statement. More years lost in a pointless discussion, but perhaps that was the intention.

NERF is no longer willing to have its reputation tarnished by involvement with a process that is, in our opinion, being deliberately frustrated by organisations that have failed to demonstrate any willingness to find a solution to what is after all an irrational and outdated belief that Hen Harrier numbers must be subjected to lethal control for the benefit of the grouse shooting industry.

Some comments on last night’s ‘Inside Out’ programme on hen harrier persecution

So, what did we learn from last night’s Inside Out programme on the illegal persecution of hen harriers?

According to Martin Gillibrand, the Moorland Association’s secretary, there is ‘no evidence’ that gamekeepers have been involved in hen harrier persecution, and the cause of their near extinction as a breeding species in England is “as a result of some very bad springs, breeding productivity has fallen off and the numbers have gone down“. Ah, so climate change is the real problem then. So if we all turn down our central heating and get our lofts insulated the hen harriers will be ok. It’s the same old story – give any explanation for the demise of the hen harrier except for the most obvious one.

Funny that he didn’t mention an earlier Moorland Association statement, given as written evidence during the recent parliamentary audit on wildlife crime (see here) –

“Until a full set of special rules allowing the positive management of hen harriers breeding on grouse moors is forthcoming from the Environment Council’s Hen Harrier Dialogue, moorland owners are within their rights and the law to deter the birds from settling on their moors to breed.”

Nor did he mention previous correspondence between the Moorland Association and DEFRA minister [grouse moor owner] Richard Benyon, discussing the possibility of derogations from international law that would allow for the legal ‘management’ of hen harriers (see here).

What else did we learn? Well, as predicted, the recent introduction of vicarious liability legislation in Scotland was touted as the solution to end raptor persecution. Unsurprisingly, this view was presented by Des Thompson of SNH – an organisation with a vested interest in making everyone believe that they’re dealing with the on-going (59 years and counting) problem of illegal raptor persecution. According to Des Thompson:

“We are seeing some real signs of success. There are indications now that the recorded incidents of poisoned birds of prey is declining“.

He went on: “We were despairing in Scotland a couple of years ago but things have got a lot better“.

Have they? Yes, the number of recorded poisoning incidents has dropped, but does that mean poisoning has dropped, or poisoning is still going on but it’s now better hidden, or that recorded poisoning incidents have dropped because other methods of persecution are now being employed? Here are three examples that suggest things have not ‘got better’ (see here, here and here).

It’s interesting that SNH should interpret the drop in recorded poisoning incidents as a ‘success’, when the only true measure of success will be if raptor populations (especially hen harrier and golden eagle) recover. If they do recover, it will take several years to see it. Sorry, but to suggest at this early stage that vicarious liability has been a ‘success’ is utter rubbish – it’s a statement with more spin than a Zanussi.

Yesterday we blogged about how vicarious liability isn’t the solution to solving the issue of illegal raptor persecution, mainly because the crux of the vicarious liability concept is that the individual criminal first has to be identified before his/her employer can be charged under the new legislation. However, this was written from a Scottish perspective, where evidence such as covert video surveillance (identifying an individual actually committing the crime) is so often banned as admissable evidence in court. However, in England, this type of evidence is frequently accepted in court and has been used very successfully to convict criminal gamekeepers. So, in this context, vicarious liability, if it was to be introduced in England, might just work.

If you missed last night’s programme you can watch it on iPlayer (here) for a limited period.

We’ll be blogging later today about the latest development from the Hen Harrier Dialogue…

For anagram fans: A SAD MORONS COALITION / MOORLAND ASSOCIATION

‘No evidence’ of gamekeepers persecuting hen harriers, says Moorland Association

As a prelude to this evening’s programme about the illegal persecution of hen harriers, there was a short piece on BBC Radio Newcastle this morning.

In an astonishing interview, the secretary of the Moorland Association (the representative body of grouse moor owners) suggests that there is ‘no evidence’ of gamekeepers being involved with the illegal persecution of hen harriers.

Fortunately, Guy Shorrock of the RSPB’s Investigations Team was on-hand to provide an eloquent and well-informed rebuttal.

It’s remarkable that the Moorland Association are still in denial, even though we’re all well aware that this species is on the very brink of becoming extinct as a breeding species in England. It’s especially remarkable given that the Moorland Association have been party to the Hen Harrier Dialogue – the discussion process set up specifically to find ways of addressing the conflict between grouse moor management and hen harriers (now in its 7th year). We’ll be blogging about the latest news from the Hen Harrier Dialogue shortly – and given the Moorland Association’s flat denial that hen harrier persecution exists, you won’t be surprised to find out the latest development…

Meanwhile, listen to this morning’s radio interview (here, starts at 1.25.30 and ends at 1.31.06) and be sure to watch the tv programme this evening (here).

Photograph below shows a hen harrier being removed from an illegally-set trap on a Scottish grouse moor in 2010. This bird was lucky – he survived. Nobody was prosecuted for setting the illegal trap.

Hen harrier being removed from illegal trap on Moy Estate

Hen harrier plight to feature on BBC this evening

BBCInsideOutBBC 1’s Inside Out programme this evening will feature the plight of the hen harrier.

The programme’s preview notes say the following: “And as hen harriers disappear from northern hills, might Scotland have found a way to stop persecution?”

Er, unless the Scottish Government has finally decided to implement a licensing scheme for so-called ‘sporting estates’, or mandatory prison terms have been brought in for those found guilty of raptor persecution, then the answer has to be a resounding NO! Scotland has not found a way to stop persecution, even though it’s almost sixty years since raptors were given legal protection.

We very much hope that this programme doesn’t try to suggest that vicarious liability is the answer. It isn’t. For vicarious liability to work, the individual who actually committed the crime still has to be identified before his/her employer can be charged. This is virtually impossible in too many cases, especially on the larger sporting estates where there are multiple gamekeepers who will all deny any knowledge of any criminal activity. Identifying the individual criminal would be possible if various legal obstacles were removed (like the admission of covert video footage showing the individual commiting the crime), but so far those with the power to implement such change seem unwilling to make an effort.

Nevertheless, it’s great that the BBC have chosen to highlight the shocking status of the hen harrier, and in a primetime viewing slot, so well done to them for that.

The programme is a regional one (North East and Cumbria) but will be available on iPlayer for those who miss the actual programme.

Click here to go to the Inside Out webpage and follow the links to watch the episode on-line after this evening’s show.

SNH species action framework conference: presentations & podcasts

species action frameworkSNH have been under fire in recent weeks over their controversial decision to authorise the use of clam traps. (Thanks, by the way, to all of you who took the time to contact SNH on this issue – we await their latest response with interest).

However, sometimes SNH do things well and this blog entry reflects that. Last November (2012), SNH held a Species Action Framework Conference in Edinburgh to discuss the results of their five-year programme focusing on the conservation and management of 32 species (see website here). Kudos to them for recently publishing the presentations, both as downloadable PowerPoints as well as Podcasts.

The following presentations may be of particular interest to RPS readers:

Managing Species Conflicts (Steve Redpath, Aberdeen University). Powerpoint presentation here; podcast here.

Sea Eagle (Andrew Stevenson, SNH and Rhian Evans, RSPB). Powerpoint presentation appears to be unavailable; podcast here.

Hen Harrier (Des Thompson, SNH and Simon Lester, Langholm Moor Demonstration Project). Powerpoint presentation here; podcast here.

The hen harrier presentation and podcast is particularly amusing, with head gamekeeper Simon Lester brushing over the reasons why none of the 34 Langholm harrier chicks raised during the current Langholm project have ever returned to breed at Langholm (er, because they’re dead?). Can’t blame the hen harrier anymore for failing grouse stock so instead he concentrated on buzzards and ravens as the prime culprits, although without producing supporting evidence. He did say that 78% of tagged red grouse had been ‘killed or eaten by raptors’. That’s quite a misleading statement – there’s a massive difference between ‘killing’ and ‘eating’. Who’s to say that the ‘eating’ wasn’t the result of scavenging the dead grouse as carrion? Anyway, we look forward, hopefully in the near future, to seeing some hard data rather than having to rely upon Simon Lester’s ‘beliefs’.

We’ll be blogging more about the demonisation of buzzards at Langholm in a later post – we’re currently reviewing some fascinating data that show, fairly conclusively on first appraisal, that red grouse are not a major component of the buzzards’ diet at Langholm. Watch this space…

RSPB hits back at Scottish Land & Estates

scotsman_logo_200The thin veneer of ‘partnership working’ is slipping.

Following recently published letters in the Scotsman concerning the grouse moor/raptor ‘debate’ (see here and here), today’s paper included a response from RSPB Scotland. It seems we weren’t alone when we described Scottish Land and Estate’s contribution as misleading guff:

“Doug McAdam of Scottish Land and Estates (Letters, 16 January) implies that the RSPB is not committed to resolving the conflict grouse moor managers perceive with birds of prey, and is not supportive of the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project. This is disingenuous.

Mr McAdam knows that RSPB Scotland was a founding partner in the Langholm project, contributes funding and remains a partner. We are encouraged that the project identified diversionary feeding as a viable tool allowing co-existence of grouse shooting and raptors.

We are disappointed by the lack of update of this by grouse moor managers. Why reject a tried and tested method that reduces (to zero at Langholm) harrier predation of grouse chicks?

Harriers at Langholm remain below the optimum and below the partners’ agreed target.

Continuing intolerance of this species outwith Langholm may well explain this sad failure.

The RSPB withdrew from one English initiative. Over the seven years of our engagement, the English hen harrier population declined to a single breeding pair. In such circumstances it seems pointless to discuss harrier management with none left to manage!

Nevertheless, we remain in dialogue with government and moor managers south of the Border and will direct our energies to any initiatives we believe can work.

The near-complete annihilation of breeding hen harriers in England shows signs of being repeated in large parts of Scotland.

Honest and meaningful dialogue is essential to stop this. Without it, Logan Steel’s hypothesis (Letters, 14 January) that raptors cannot live with intensive driven grouse shooting, may well be correct. Stuart Housden, RSPB Scotland, Edinburgh”.

[Link to the letter here]

Another poisoned buzzard in Scotland

SASA (the Government’s Science & Advice for Scottish Agriculture) have just published their latest ‘Summary of Incidents’ where they report on the number of animals that have been submitted for poisoning analysis, dating from January – September 2012 (see here).

It’s an interesting read. The results from the first three-quarters of 2012 suggest a decline in the number of reported raptor poisoning incidents. Does this reflect an actual decline in poisonings, or does it mask something more cynical, such as a change of tactics in the method of persecution used? Nobody can tell for sure at this stage, although you’d have to be pretty naive to believe the first explanation, especially after the recent shocking non-poisoning incidents such as the dead golden eagle found in a lay-by with two broken legs, believed to have been illegally trapped on an Angus grouse moor and then moved by vehicle in the dead of night and dumped by the side of the road, barely alive and left to suffer an horrific death. Then there was the golden eagle that was found shot and critically injured on a grouse moor in Dumfrieshire, now making a slow recovery. And then the shot hen harrier found dead on another grouse moor in Grampian. And these are just the ones we know about.

The latest SASA results show that a buzzard was found dead in Grampian in September 2012, confirmed to have been poisoned by the illegal pesticide Carbofuran. We don’t remember seeing any police reports about this incident. Perhaps they kept it quiet so as not to hinder their investigation? Fair enough, but it’s now four months later…Perhaps Grampian Police will report where was it found, and whether anyone is being charged. They probably won’t though; yet another incident being quietly swept under the carpet? We blogged about these poisoning incidents going unreported the last time SASA published their stats (see here).

There were a number of dead buzzards that were submitted to SASA for testing between Jan-Sept 2012, including the satellite-tagged ‘Buzz’, believed to be the first sat-tracked buzzard in Scotland (see here). His last signal came from near Brechin, Angus in late September. His corpse was picked up by the side of the road. Given the location and the on-going history of raptor persecution in the nearby area, his body was submitted for a post-mortem. He hadn’t been poisoned though – SASA concluded that his probable cause of death was starvation. It would have been nice if Tayside Police had provided information about this result, given so many were following his movements on Roy Dennis’ website…

Buzz wasn’t the only buzzard to starve to death. There are four other buzzards listed in the report with the same probable cause of death; strange really, when there are some people who maintain that buzzards are gorging themselves silly on gamebirds.

Interestingly, the dead golden eagle found in suspicious circumstances on Harris in June did not not appear in the SASA results, even though the press reported at the time that poisoning was suspected (see here). Perhaps Northern Constabulary will provide an update on the outcome of this one? Yeah, you’re right, of course they won’t.