Tag: hen harrier

Hen harrier is four steps away from English extinction, says RSPB

The RSPB has today issued a press release that says the hen harrier is the bird most likely to become extinct in England because of human pressure.

A 2011 joint survey of the English uplands by the RSPB and Natural England found that only four nesting pairs of hen harrier successfully raised young; all on a single estate in the Forest of Bowland, Lancashire.

This is believed to be the lowest population in England since they recolonised in the 1960s following extinction in the late Nineteenth Century. Historically, the hen harrier was widespread in England.

A government-backed report – the Hen Harrier Conservation Framework – proved that illegal persecution on driven-grouse moors is the main factor restricting the growth of the hen harrier population in the UK. The framework reported that England’s uplands could support at least 320 pairs of this bird of prey. (See here, here and here for our earlier posts about the Hen Harrier research).

To read the rest of the press release, click here

Mark Avery also has a commentary about this on his blog, here

Tagged harrier from Langholm mysteriously ‘disappears’

Earlier this month, Environment Minister Stewart Stevenson MSP visited the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project in the Borders. The Langholm Project is an expensive, ten-year project aimed at demonstrating that hen harriers can co-exist with driven grouse shooting. The project is run as a partnership between SNH, Buccleuch Estates, RSPB, GWCT and Natural England. As part of the project, young hen harriers are being fitted with satellite tags to monitor their dispersal movements away from the moor.

The Environment Minister’s visit to Langholm was well publicised with an SNH press release (see here). In this press release, the Minister is quoted as saying: “…it was fascinating to learn that harriers that have been tagged at Langholm are being satellite tracked as far afield as France and Spain”.

Yes, that is fascinating, but of even greater interest is what has happened to the harriers that stayed behind in the UK?

According to the most recent diary entry on the project’s website (October 2011 – see here) written by the Langholm Project’s head gamekeeper, Simon Lester, one of this year’s young harriers has ‘disappeared’ –

“There is good and bad news as far as our satellite-tagged hen harriers are concerned. The ever-intrepid McPedro is certainly heading to France, across the channel from Devon. The sad news is that the hen that hatched in the nest just behind our house — and that I fed for some 60 days — has disappeared in the Moorfoots, having survived well in a relatively small range. The last ‘fix’ (or GPS position transmitted by its satellite tag) was on a shooting estate that co-operated fully when Project staff and the police tried, unsuccessfully, to recover the missing bird. Unfortunately, this bird’s particular satellite tag does not have a ‘ground track’ facility, so it may well have ended up miles away from the last transmitted ‘fix’, as, contrary to popular belief, birds can travel a vast distance in between transmissions. This latest loss is very sad, not just for the Project and our hope that more hen harriers will return to breed here, but is not helpful in our quest to help resolve the on-going raptor/grouse-shooting debate, either“.

Now, this is a fairly one-sided commentary of what might have happened to this young harrier. What Lester failed to mention was that the sporting estate where the harrier’s last known GPS ‘fix’ came from was an estate in the Scottish Borders with a well-documented history of alleged raptor persecution. This particular estate has been the subject of two police raids in the last few years. Illegal pesticides, poisoned baits and poisoned and shot raptors have all reportedly been retrieved from this estate. Apparently, no prosecutions for alleged raptor persecution crime resulted from either raid.

Lester is quite right to point out that just because the last known GPS ‘fix’ of the harrier was on this estate, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the harrier died there. As he says, the harrier could have moved off the estate before the next satellite signal was due, and could have died elsewhere – although if that had happened, why wasn’t there another ‘fix’ from the new location? The transmitter doesn’t die when the bird dies. For all we know though, the bird may not even be dead. It’s possible that the satellite transmitter failed, by coincidence, when the bird was on this estate, and the harrier has since moved away and is alive and well in an unknown location. But there is another plausible explanation too, and one that Lester conveniently chose not to include in his report. That is, this harrier could have been killed illegally on this particular estate, and its body hidden/buried/burnt before the Langholm Project staff arrived to search for it. It’s worth pointing out here that the Langholm Project policy, when searching for missing birds, is to look at the bird’s last known GPS ‘fix’, identify the landowner, and ask for that landowner’s permission before the project staff go searching for the bird, thus giving advance warning of the search.

Why Lester chose not to include this alternative possible explanation in his report about the disappearance of the harrier is not clear. It would seem that the suspicion of foul play had been considered by the project team, given that a wildlife crime police officer accompanied the team to search for the missing bird on this estate. We will wait with interest for the Langholm Project’s formal 2011 annual report to see what information is provided about this particular disappearing harrier, and about all the other tagged harriers from 2010 and 2011. So far, very limited information has been made available about the fate of the six tagged harriers, with the exception of the famed ‘McPedro’, who wisely took off to Spain in his first summer, returned to the UK this spring, and then took off south again this autumn. Given the amount of public funding that is being ploughed into the Langholm Project, a bit more transparency about the fate of some of the other young harriers wouldn’t go amiss.

Langholm Moor Demonstration Project website here

Things to do list #2

In the November 2011 edition of Birdwatch magazine, Mark Avery calls for our views about hen harriers and grouse moors. He says that if we send our views to the Birdwatch editor, they’ll be summarised and sent to a range of organisations including the Moorland Association, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, the RSPB and the Scottish Raptor Study Groups.

Is there any value in doing this? Do you think the anti-harrier brigade will pay any attention to our views? Why would they? It’s been illegal to kill harriers since 1954 – this hasn’t stopped anyone doing it, and has pushed harriers to the very brink of extinction as a breeding bird in England, and severely depleted their numbers in parts of Scotland, so why would the harrier killers stop now?

The alternative is to do nothing, giving the grouse-shooting fraternity the chance to use our silence as an indication that we simply don’t care. We can’t let that happen, can we?

In Avery’s Birdwatch article, he writes a small piece about the harrier problem, but given the limited page space he can’t explain the problem in detail. He then offers three possible options on how to deal with the harrier/grouse issue, and asks readers to comment on them, or alternatively, suggest other options. Avery’s three options are paraphrased here:

A: Just forget it. Conservationists are fighting a losing battle and should turn their attention to more important issues.

B: Keep up the fight and keep publicising illegal persecution because if we lose the harrier, other species will surely follow. Keep talking to the ‘good guys’ in shooting who also want to see an end to harrier persecution.

C: Forget about trying to work with grouse shooters – they’ve had their chance to put their house in order and have failed miserably. Instead, lobby for an outright ban on grouse shooting.

If you want to comment on the issue, email your views to: editorial@birdwatch.co.uk. You’ll need to write before the end of November.

If you want some detailed background reading on the issue, we recommend reading Avery’s earlier articles about the harrier-grouse problem that he’s written on his personal blog (see here), and some of our earlier blog posts on harriers (see here, here, here, here, here, and here).

To subscribe to Birdwatch magazine online, click here.

Poisoning by numbers

Last week the RSPB published its annual UK-wide report on raptor persecution (Birdcrime 2010, see here). We said we’d comment on the report once we’d had a chance to read it. Others chose to comment on the day of its release, or to be more accurate, their commentary was probably written prior to the release and was probably based on the content of the RSPB’s press release, rather than on the actual report’s content (see here).

Birdcrime 2010 held few surprises for many of us. The report carried details of raptor persecution incidents (confirmed, probable and possible) that had been reported throughout 2010, so by not publishing the report until November 2011, many of the items could be considered ‘old news’ (or at least those incidents that had been previously reported in the media – as usual, there were several incidents recorded in this report that were not made public at the time they occurred). That’s not to say the report has no value – it is an immensely important document because it is still the only publication to collate these national statistics in one place. It would just be more useful if it could be published at the beginning of the following year to which the report relates, rather than at the end of the following year, but limited RSPB staff resources may prevent this.

One advantage of publishing the report so late is that information can be provided on the outcome of criminal proceedings for those persecution incidents that actually made it to court. For example, the report provides some previously unpublished information about the trial of gamekeeper Glenn Brown, who was found guilty in June 2011 of operating an illegal trap to take birds of prey (amongst other crimes) on Howden Moor in the Peak District in April and May 2010 (see here, here and here). According to Birdcrime 2010, Judge Caroline Goulbourn “ruled that she viewed the attack on the integrity of the RSPB investigations staff by Bertie Woodcock QC on behalf of Knights Solicitors as an aggravating factor in the case. In addition, she criticised Brown’s employer, Geoff Eyre, who leases Howden Moor from the National Trust, for being evasive and reluctant to answer questions” [Birdcrime 2010, p.17].

Incidentally, there is further detail about this case that has been written in the RSPB’s newsletter, Legal Eagle 65. On page 2 the following has been written: “During the ten day trial, the prosecution relied on expert evidence including Prof Ian Newton, Dr Mick Marquiss, Stewart Scull, Dr Alisdair Wood and Guda van der Burght. The defence case, led by Bertie Woodcock QC, centred on the fact that Brown was not using the trap and the entire investigation was a set up with RSPB officers acting in bad faith throughout”. It’s good to see that Judge Goulbourn ruled against this, although what will happen at Brown’s impending appeal remains to be seen. Legal Eagle 65 reports that this appeal “is expected to take place in 2012”.

In addition to the case studies of earlier persecution incidents, Birdcrime 2010 reports that annual poisoning figures were down from 2009 (128 reported poisoning incidents in 2010, compared to 153 in 2009). It also reports that the 2010 figure is below the average for the last five years (2005-2009 average of 150 incidents). Unsurprisingly, it is this aspect that has been picked up on by the game-shooting lobby (e.g. see here). There has also been much made in the media this year about the ‘low’ poisoning figures for 2011 (e.g. see here) – although the published figures only relate to the first half of 2011; figures from June 2011 onwards are not yet available. So is this a sign of progress, as many of the game-shooting lobby would have us believe, or is it indicative of something else? For example, the lower figures could well be an indication that the gamekeepers have finally seen the light and have decreased their poisoning efforts. On the other hand, it could be an indication that gamekeepers are either (a) getting better at hiding their crimes, (b) switching to other persecution methods such as shooting, which is less likely to be detected, or (c) reporting efforts by the authorities have fallen. At this point I don’t think that either ‘side’ can claim a ‘victory’ in the on-going war of words. It is far too early to tell. For example, if you look at the graph that was published in the RSPB’s earlier report, The Illegal Killing of Birds of Prey in Scotland in 2010 (see here), then this reported decline in poisoning incidents can be seen in much clearer context. The graph I’m referring to appears on page 11 of that report and shows the number of confirmed poisoning incidents in Scotland from 1989-2010. The graph has been recreated for this post – see below (thanks to the contributor who sent it!).

If you look closely at the graph, you will see a great deal of variation between years in the number of confirmed poisoning incidents. Of particular interest are the years 1994 and 1995 – in these two years, confirmed poisoning incidents dropped to a low of 15 from a previous high of 35+. However, if you then look at the following three years, the number of confirmed incidents steadily rose until they reached 35+ again. In 1999, the figure dropped again to 15, and from then until 2010, that figure has steadily risen and fallen, although never reaching the low of 15 again. So what does that tell us? I’m fairly sure that in the years 1994 and 1995, the game shooting lobby would have declared a ‘victory’ as the figures had dropped so much, and would have shouted from the hilltops that they’d changed their ways.  I’m also fairly sure that in the following three years when the figures rose again, the conservationists would have declared a ‘victory’ and pronounced that their claims of widespread persecution had been vindicated. Either way, it is clear that neither ‘side’ can draw conclusions just based on an annual figure; for a trend to be detected, we need to see long-term figures.

But do these figures actually provide the full picture? If you read the recent paper on historical persecution at Atholl Estate (see here), then it’s pretty obvious that the ‘official’ persecution figures are meaningless, in the sense that they don’t tell the whole story. And from a conservation perspective, the figures, whether accurate or not, are not really that important. To steal a line from the recent paper on peregrine persecution on grouse moors (see here), “….it is the population level impact that is important, rather than the number of confirmed persecution cases”. We now have peer-reviewed scientific studies that have shown how persecution on grouse moors is having a population level impact on several vulnerable species (golden eagle, hen harrier, red kite and now peregrine). We have yet to see any peer-reviewed scientific studies that can counter these findings and show that these species are NOT impacted by persecution on grouse moors at a population scale. Why do you think that is, and more to the point, what are our politicians going to do about the published findings, apart from telling us that the Scottish government’s support for grouse shooting “goes beyond words“? (see here). Let’s hope that support doesn’t go beyond action as well.

Tip of the iceberg

Anyone who has been reading the ‘official’ annual raptor persecution reports over the last few decades will be familiar with the phrase, “These figures represent the tip of the iceberg”. Conservationists have long held the view that many illegal raptor persecution incidents go unreported, given the remote locations involved and the cultural and social pressures that inhibit certain sectors of the rural community from speaking up about these crimes. Most reports of poisoned, shot, or trapped raptors come from people who have found them by chance, for example hill walkers and dog walkers. The game shooting lobby, in response to the ‘tip of the iceberg’ statement, usually asks, “Where’s the evidence?” The numerous (and ever-increasing) glut of peer-reviewed scientific publications, that show a clear correlation between persecution and upland grouse moors, are usually dismissed as ‘pseudo-science’ by the landowners and gamekeepers, and the conservationists are often accused of conducting some sort of smear campaign against the game shooting industry.

No doubt we will hear all of this, and more, in the coming few days once the RSPB Birdcrime 2010 report has been published later this week. For certain, the report will contain the statement, “These figures represent the tip of the iceberg”, or words to that effect.

So, if the gamekeepers want evidence, here’s some that was unwittingly provided by….er, gamekeepers. It comes in the form of a recently (Sept 2011) published paper in the journal Scottish Birds, which is published by the Scottish Ornithologists’ Club. The paper was written by R.L. McMillan and is entitled, ‘Raptor persecution on a large Perthshire estate: a historical study’. Unfortunately we’re not allowed to publish the whole paper here (you have to be a member of the SOC to get access, or google the author and ask him for a PDF for your personal use) but here is the abstract:

The Atholl Game and Vermin Lists provide an almost continuous record from 1867 until 1988 and in many respects are unique for a large estate in Scotland. Large numbers of raptors and owls were destroyed by gamekeepers during the latter part of the 19th century and into the late 20th century. The implementation of legislation to protect predatory birds appears to have made little difference to persecution levels. Gamekeepers on individual beats seemed able to decide whether they killed predators or not. A few gamekeepers chose not to kill any birds of prey. Some persecution continued well into the late 20th century and a comparison between estate records and incidents recorded by the authorities strongly suggests that a substantial amount of illegal persecution was not recorded.

The paper provides a detailed insight into the extent of raptor persecution on Atholl Estate,  covering the historical period when it was legal to kill raptors (pre-1954), and the current period when it is illegal to kill raptors (1954 onwards). Gamekeepers on the nine beats at Atholl Estate were required to submit annual report cards that recorded the number of game and ‘vermin’ [including raptors!] that was killed on each beat. According to the paper, McMillan writes of Atholl Estate:

“To maintain the estate record of game and vermin killed, the individual shooting beats were required to complete a card by the end of February each year and this contained details from the preceding year. The same printed card had been in use for many years and this included hawks, owls and ravens. Although the estate factor regularly checked the returns on these cards, it was only when a member of staff expressed concern that protected birds were included in the returns, that a new form was introduced for the 1988/89 season which excluded protected species”.

The historical records covering part of the period (1867-1911) when it was legal to kill raptors don’t provide any surprises, showing that 11,428 ‘hawks’ were killed on Atholl Estate, in addition to 3,731 owls. Sadly the records do not distinguish between different species of ‘hawks’ or owls and McMillan has interpreted the term to include every raptor and owl species that would typically occur in the area.

The more recent records, however, are of far more interest. They show the period covering the introduction of the 1954 Protection of Birds Act (making it illegal to kill all raptors except sparrowhawks, which weren’t protected until 1961) and McMillan’s graphs of persecution incidents show that the legislation was ignored on the two beats whose records he analysed. In fact on one beat, McMillan shows that persecution actually increased at the time the Act was implemented.

But the most interesting part of this paper comes in Table 3. It is a comparison of gamekeeper records from just one Atholl Estate beat, with the ‘official’ RSPB data for the whole of Scotland, from the period 1980 – 1988. The RSPB data only include details of raptors that have been killed (so not details of ‘suspected’ incidents). Here’s an overview of McMillan’s findings:

1980/81: Atholl Estate beat = 19 raptors killed; RSPB official data for all of Scotland= 9 raptors killed.

1981/82: AE beat = 21; RSPB all Scotland= 23.

1982/83: AE beat = 36; RSPB all Scotland= 16.

1983/84: AE beat = 36; RSPB all Scotland  = 13.

1984/85: AE beat = 25; RSPB all Scotland= 12.

1985/86: AE beat = 22; RSPB all Scotland= 8.

1986/87: AE beat = 14; RSPB all Scotland= 13.

1987/88: AE beat = 30; RSPB all Scotland  = 15.

So, in each of the years listed, with the exception of 1981/82, the ‘official’ RSPB figures for the WHOLE of Scotland were lower than the number of illegally persecuted raptors on just one shooting beat. Does anyone need any clearer evidence that the ‘official’ statistics of illegal raptor persecution are just the tip of the iceberg?!! Of course, there are plenty of arguments that could be made about the reliability of the gamekeepers’ records – i.e. keepers could have inflated the number to earn a bonus, or alternatively keepers could have reduced the number for fear of providing potentially incriminating evidence. McMillan deals with these and other issues in the paper. And for those who think the persecution stopped when Atholl Estate stopped recording it in the 1988/89 season, McMillan reports that “between 1989 and 1999, a number of incidents were logged by the RSPB on several shooting beats on the Atholl Estates, not all of which were confirmed, but which included shootings of raptors, trapping of birds including golden eagle and the deliberate destruction of broods of hen harrier and peregrines“.

It’s worth bearing in mind that these figures in Table 3 are from just ONE beat on just ONE sporting estate. You don’t need much imagination to guess what these figures would look like if records from every sporting estate in Scotland were included in the analysis. This should provide some perspective when we read the ‘official’ figures in the RSPB Birdcrime 2010 report later this week.

It should be noted that under the current management, Atholl Estate regularly provides a home for breeding golden eagles, peregrines, hen harriers and other raptors.

Full paper citation: McMillan, R.L. (2011). Raptor persecution on a large Perthshire estate: a historical study. Scottish Birds 31(3): 195-205.

Atholl Estate website here

Thank you to the contributor who alerted us to this publication.

RSPB publishes 2010 raptor persecution report

The RSPB has just published its annual report on raptor persecution in Scotland. The report, ‘The Illegal Killing of Birds of Prey in Scotland 2010‘ is the only known published record of all known persecution incidents including poisoning, shooting and trapping, in contrast to the PAW Scotland annual report which only details poisoning incidents. As well as the confirmed incidents of persecution, the report also provides information about ‘probable’ incidents (those where the available evidence points to illegality as by far the most likely explanation but where the proof of an offence is not categorical) and ‘possible’ incidents (where an illegal act is a possible explanation but where another explanation would also fit the known facts).

The report provides details of several confirmed and probable persecution incidents that didn’t make it into the public domain at the time they occurred, including two shot sparrowhawks (Dingwall, Inverness-shire & nr Dolphinton, South Lanarkshire), a goshawk killed in a pole trap (nr Dalwhinnie, Inverness-shire), a shot short-eared owl (Leadhills, South Lanarkshire), 5 separate incidents involving peregrines (Stirlingshire, South Lanarkshire and Dumfries-shire), ‘disappearing’ hen harrier chicks (nr Knockando, Moray), a member of the public witnessing the shooting of a buzzard (nr Leadhills, South Lanarkshire), the discovery of a heavily decomposed buzzard carcass found in a stink pit (nr Dornie, Inverness-shire) and the discovery of a suspected pole-trapping site (nr Dornie, Inverness-shire).

Interestingly, although the report doesn’t go as far as naming estates in most incidents (apart from the reports of successful prosecutions), it does go further than the vague information provided in the annual PAW statistics. For example, in the PAW Scotland ‘Bird of Prey Poisoning Incidents 2006-2010 – Incident Details’ report (that we discussed here in March 2011), there are several cases of buzzard poisoning that were just listed as ‘Tayside’. The RSPB report clarifies this a little bit, and lists the locations as ‘Glenogil’ and ‘nr Kinross’.

This annual report makes for grisly reading, but as the report says, these incidents no longer shock or surprise us. The evidence yet again points to the involvement of people within the game-shooting industry; the latest statistics show that of all those convicted for illegal raptor persecution in Scotland between 2003-2010, 88% were involved with gamekeeping (the rest involved pest controllers, farmers and pigeon racers at 4% each).

The RSPB makes several recommendations in the report that would considerably reduce the difficulty of bringing these criminals to justice. They include recommended action for the police, the crown office & procurator fiscal service, the Scottish government, and representatives from the game-shooting industry. Some of these recommendations have been made before but have apparently remained unheeded.

Well done to the RSPB for publishing this report and for keeping the issue high on the political and public agenda.

The report can be downloaded here

Farming journalist laments our lost hen harriers

Stand up and take a bow, Rognvald (Rog) Wood, who wrote the following article in The Herald this week, under the headline, “Pity the graceful hen harrier in grouse season“.

Today may well be the “Glorious 12th” for the landed gentry and the privileged few who can afford to shoot grouse, but spare a thought for the unfortunate “muir cocks” for whom today will be their last.

Over the past few days I have been receiving press releases from estate agents revealing the prospects for the coming season on the various grouse moors around Scotland.

While the breeding success of grouse this year is of interest to a minority, there are a lot more folk who would like to know about the breeding success of graceful hen harriers, another bird that lives on our heather-clad hills, but has the misfortune to be a predator of grouse.

I can reveal that, once again, hen harriers have had an unsuccessful breeding season.

A report published in February of this year by the UK’s nature conservation co-ordinator on hen harriers in the UK said that persecution is a significant factor limiting growth of the hen harrier population.

Persecution was considered to be a particular problem in areas associated with grouse moor management in Scotland where numbers of the raptors are kept at rock-bottom.

Not surprisingly, the report came under heavy fire from the shooting fraternity and landed gentry who claimed it contained serious scientific flaws that undermined its conclusions.

Those allegations were strongly rebutted by Professor Des Thompson, SNH principal adviser on bio-diversity, who said: “The report is not flawed and is a robust piece of scientific work carried out by some of Britain’s leading raptor scientists.”

Underlining the extent of persecution – that includes destroying nests and eggs as well as shooting the raptors – Prof Thompson went on: “This study supports an independent study published last year by Prof Steve Redpath and colleagues that calculated there should have been 500 successful hen harrier nests on Britain’s grouse moors in 2008 when there were only five – just 1% of the predicted number.”

Farmer, author and journalist, Rog Wood has been farming correspondent for several specialist farming publications. Writing as Tom Duncan in the Sunday Post for 19 years, he is currently farming editor of The Herald. He is also a former columnist with the Standard.

Welcome to the inglorious twelfth!

Today is the inglorious 12th, the start of the four-month grouse shooting season in the uplands of northern England and Scotland. Today, and for many days to come, ridiculously rich people will dress up in clownish outfits and head for the moors in the hope of shooting dead some birds. Many will pay an estimated average of £15,000 for the experience. I wonder how many of them will enjoy the sight of a hunting hen harrier or a golden eagle quartering across the moor? Very few, infact probably none of them because scientific evidence shows that hen harriers and golden eagles have been exterminated on most grouse moors in the UK, with just a few notable exceptions. Has anyone been convicted? One person was once convicted for killing a hen harrier, and that’s it. Nobody has ever been convicted for killing a golden eagle (someone was once taken to court a few years back but the case was dropped). Even though several dead eagles and the UK’s biggest stash of the poison they died from were all found on a sporting estate last year, still nobody has ever been convicted.

Four years ago today, this golden eagle (pictured) was found dead in Peebleshire. She was one half of the last breeding pair of golden eagles in the Borders. She had been poisoned by the banned pesticide Carbofuran and was found dead under her nest tree. Her death caused outrage and triggered the thematic inspection into the prevention, investigation and prosecution of wildlife crime in Scotland (read the resulting 2008 ‘Natural Justice’ report here). This report highlighted the problems that stand in the way of effective wildlife crime law enforcement in Scotland. Four years later, many of the same problems still exist. Nobody has been charged with the illegal killing of that female golden eagle in Peebleshire and according to a report by the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme, the case is now closed.

Since the year she was killed (2007), how many other protected raptors have suffered the same fate? The following have all been confirmed poisoned in Scotland over the last four years – the vast majority of them were found dead on grouse moors:

8 golden eagles, 3 sea eagles, 63 buzzards, 25 red kites and 8 peregrines.

These numbers do not account for birds that were trapped, shot, or had their heads smashed in with a shinty stick while their broken legs were pinned in an illegal spring trap. Nor do they account for the ‘missing’ birds – including over 2,000 hen harriers.

Today, the grouse-shooting industry will have filled the media with stories about how ‘great’ grouse moors are for conservation, how ‘great’ grouse shooting is for the economy, how ‘great’ grouse-shooting is for biodiversity. Fortunately, the general public are becoming wise to the propaganda.

It’s just ‘a few rogues’

One of the most significant barriers to ‘sorting out’ the widespread illegal persecution of raptors in Scotland is getting anyone to accept responsibility for these crimes. Previous analyses by the RSPB have shown an irrefutable link between illegally-killed raptors and the game-shooting industry (e.g. see here). Time and time again, scientific peer-reviewed studies have also shown the incontrovertible relationship between areas that are ‘missing’ breeding raptors such as golden eagles and hen harriers, and areas managed as sporting grouse moors (e.g. take a look at the government-funded Conservation Framework Reports for the golden eagle and hen harrier as a starter).

Despite the long-standing and highly-regarded body of evidence, the game-shooting industry continues to refuse responsibility. The latest article in the Scotsman (see here) provides a perfect example of this.

It’s a handful of “rogue estates” carrying out poisonings, say the gamekeepers. It’s a “handful of estates” says David Hendry of the Cardney Estate. It’s “a minority” says Susan Davies of Scottish Natural Heritage. It’s a “tiny minority” according to the SGA response to the article on their Facebook page.

It’s an interesting choice of words isn’t it? The term ‘rogue’ is often used in a jocular sense in today’s society – “Oh, he’s just a loveable rogue”, meaning yes an individual is bending the rules but he’s not doing any real harm, he’s alright really. The term ‘rogue’ is also used to infer just one or two individuals (e.g. it was a rogue crocodile, or it was a rogue tiger that attacked the man), as is the term ‘a handful’. What is a handful? One or two? Not more than five? Not more than ten? The term ‘minority’ (depending on the context) refers to less than the majority.

Do any of these words adequately describe the extent of illegal raptor persecution on Scottish sporting estates, or are they just words used to deflect the increasingly obvious conclusion that illegal raptor persecution is endemic across many sporting estates? Let’s look at the stats.

This blog has been accused of using out-of-date information to create the false illusion of widespread raptor persecution. It’s a valid criticism in some ways as our Named Estates page dates back to incidents that were recorded in 1979. Actually it only includes one record from 1979 but to be fair the list does include a lot of reported incidents from the 1980s and 1990s. These early reported incidents were only used to illustrate the historical nature of illegal raptor persecution – i.e. it’s been going on for decades, but to be completely upfront we have since indicated which of those estates are known to have since changed hands (and thus potentially changed their ‘management’ practices). So, let’s just look at reported incidents from the last two years – that is, from January 2009 to March 2011, the most up-to-date figures available in the public domain.

During this period, twenty-six named locations have been identified as places where dead raptors have been reportedly found in suspicious circumstances. Most were poisoned but ‘a handful’ were shot or trapped and one (on Logie Estate) was found dead but the cause of death remains unknown. Of these 26 locations, 14 were on named estates: Auch Estate, Edradynate Estate, Farr and Kyllachy Estate, Glenbuchat Estate, Glenogil Estate, Invercauld Estate, *Leadhills Estate, Logie Estate, Millden Estate, Mountquhanie Estate, *Moy Estate, *Redmyre Estate, *Skibo Estate, Strathspey Estate. The remaining 12 locations were un-named and may or may not involve estates: eight in 2010 and four between Jan/Mar 2011. Of course, just because an illegally poisoned, shot or trapped dead raptor is discovered at a location doesn’t necessarily implicate the estate owner, shooting tenant or gamekeeper. It could just be a series of unfortunate coincidences, even though in the Scotsman article David Hendry of Cardney Estate admits that “there are a number of estates using poison still.” On only four of the above estates have gamekeepers been convicted for related crimes (Leadhills, Moy, Redmyre and Skibo).

If we expand the search to the previous five years (2006-2011 – as this is still relatively recent), then obviously the list grows:

*Birthwood Farm, *BlythFarm, *Cabrach Estate, Clova Estate, Dawyck Estate, Dinnet & Kinord Estate, Dunecht Estate, *Frogden Farm, *Glenbuchat Estate, Glenfeshie Estate, Glenogil Estate, Glen Turret Estate, *Innes House Estate. (The ones with an asterisk indicate a conviction during this period).  In addition, a further six un-named locations are reported.

If we remove from this expanded list those estates that were already included in the two-year analysis (i.e. Glenbuchat, Glenogil) then we are left with a total of 25 different estates where dead raptors have been reportedly discovered in suspicious circumstances in the last five years. Add to these the 18 un-named locations and you get a running total of 43 different locations, assuming that all of the un-named locations were different to the named locations.

Forty-three. Is that ‘a minority’? Well yes, in the strictest sense it is because there are hundreds of shooting estates in Scotland. The exact number seems hard to pinpoint but it’s certainly at least in the low hundreds, which means that 43 is a minority in this context. But is it a ‘tiny minority’? Is it ‘a few rogues’? Is it ‘a handful’? No it isn’t. It’s a lot more than that and the game-shooting industry is being disingenuous if it continues to peddle this rural myth. But of course they’ll continue to peddle it because they want us to believe that they’re a law-abiding industry who just happen to want licences to be allowed to legally kill ‘just a few rogue’ raptors.

And what of the locations that haven’t been reported but can be implied by the ‘missing’ breeding raptors reported in the scientific papers? How many of these locations are there? Who knows. One thing is for sure – if the landowners and gamekeepers won’t admit responsibility for the incidents we do know about, they sure as hell aren’t going to admit to the ones we don’t know about! The representative bodies all say they’re working hard behind the scenes to get the ‘rogues’ to stop, but they’ve been saying that for a long, long time and here we are in 2011 and the killing continues up and down the country, with the exception of ‘a handful’ of decent estates who proactively welcome breeding raptors. Why does it continue? Because the majority know they can get away with it, just as they have been doing for the past 50+ years.

Update on last week’s police raid

Further to the blog post on 19 July 2011, the name of the Highland sporting estate that was raided last week has been reported as Farr and Kyllachy Estate, near Inverness. The police raid was in connection with alleged wildlife crime incidents that include a poisoned sea eagle and a poisoned golden eagle, believed to have been discovered in June 2010, and four dead red kites.

Allegations of wildlife crime in this area date back several decades, including the previously reported discovery of poison bait, hen harrier nest destruction, poisoned eagles, poisoned red kites and attempted trapping of goshawks and peregrines. All of these allegations can be found by anybody interested in doing an internet search, although no allegation has ever been proven in the Scottish courts.

No charges have been reported in relation to last week’s police raid. On this basis, blog commentators are reminded that anyone connected with Farr and Kyllachy Estate must be presumed innocent.

According to a 2005 report in The Times, Farr Estate is expected to receive profit of up to £11 million from revenue generated by recently erected wind turbines (see here).

Last year, The Press & Journal ran an article (here) about tick management on the estate, including an interview with the Laird, Philip Mackenzie. The article claimed that tick control had led to a 20-fold increase in the number of brace shot (red grouse) in the previous six years. It also stated the Estate was expecting 2010 to produce the best grouse bags since 1938, leading to 15 days of let driven grouse shooting, at a tidy charge of £10,000 + per day.

Last year Farr Estate donated driven and walked-up grouse shooting days to the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust’s (GWCT) 2010 Grand Scottish Draw (see here).