Tag: hen harrier

Opportunity to photograph hen harriers on Glen Tanar Estate

Here’s an interesting one. Glen Tanar Estate in the Cairngorms National Park is offering an opportunity for photographers to spend time in a specially-built observation hide to photograph hen harriers at a supplementary feeding station.

We have previously blogged about Glen Tanar Estate’s outstanding efforts to protect the breeding hen harriers on their grouse moor (see here and here) – an unprecedented effort that has drawn widespread praise from the conservation community. Now the estate has teamed up with a specialist wildlife photography company (Northshots) to allow wildlife photographers a rare opportunity to photograph the estate’s harriers during the sensitive breeding period (see here).

What’s interesting about this is the whole idea of a private estate charging money to photograph a species that essentially belongs to all of us. Is it ethical for Glen Tanar Estate to profit from this? Some might argue that yes, it is entirely ethical, and this behaviour should be encouraged in order to persuade other shooting estates that there is a (financial) incentive for them to protect breeding hen harriers on their land. If more estates took this proactive approach, then perhaps we’d have more than just a single pair of hen harriers breeding in the district around Glen Tanar. Which is better – having harriers that are seen as a financial commodity or having no harriers at all? That’s a fairly easy choice. The Glen Tanar/Northshots approach looks to have been well thought through – the hide will apparently not be available until after any eggs hatch, thus minimising disturbance during the critical incubation period, and once the hide is opened, the number of photographers is severely restricted to a maximum of two people per day.

On the other hand, some might argue that the public shouldn’t have to pay a private estate for access to view a breeding pair of hen harriers. Assuming they already had a Schedule 1 disturbance licence that covered them for hen harriers, why should they have to pay ££ to a landowner when they have free access rights to the land anyway? What’s interesting about this particular opportunity is that it appears that any old photographer can pay for the privilege of spending time in the hide, whereas normally this kind of opportunity is restricted to photographers (and/or fieldworkers) who have a proven record of knowing how to behave when close to a Schedule 1 protected bird. Perhaps the photographers in this case are actually paying for the privilege of piggybacking onto someone else’s Schedule 1 licence? These licences are not (normally) easy to get! According to the Northshots website, “This opportunity is only possible due to the issue of a Schedule 1 [disturbance] Licence by Scottish Natural Heritage“. What isn’t clear is whether this licence has been/will be issued to a named person at Northshots, or whether each individual photographer will have to apply for their own. The website indicates that the photographer will be accompanied into and out of the hide by a ranger, but essentially will be left to their own devices for a minimum of six hours. So if the licence is given to an inexperienced individual, who will supervise that individual’s behaviour during this period to ensure they aren’t causing any unneccessary disturbance to the harriers? Or will a named individual from Northshots be present in the hide for the entire period? How will SNH assess whether the legal obligations of the licence have been met? If the harriers successfully fledge then obviously it could be argued that any disturbance wasn’t ‘significant’. But what if the harriers fail, for whatever reason, whether disturbance-related or just a natural cause? How will SNH determine the cause? Or would they even bother to try?

It’ll be an interesting experiment to see how things go (assuming the harriers cooperate and decide to nest on Glen Tanar again – highly likely, given the zero tolerance policy towards hen harriers on certain nearby estates). If the scheme is successful for both the estate and the harriers, could this prove to be a small step forward towards, dare I say it, the beginning of a recovery for our diminishing hen harrier population?

Alice in Wonderland: curiouser and curiouser!

Are you sitting comfortably children? Then I’ll begin…

Once upon a time there was a girl called Alice, who fell down a rabbit hole and entered a fantasy world (‘Wonderland’) where everyone spoke gibberish and nothing made sense. In Wonderland, (also known as the Countryside Alliance HQ), Alice thought it was “absurd” that those evil-doers at the RSPB could claim that there were only four breeding pairs of hen harrier in England in 2011. Everybody in Wonderland knew that even though all the scientific studies proved otherwise, the hen harrier in England was not on the verge of extinction as an English breeding bird, that over 2,000 harriers were not ‘missing’ from the UK countryside, and in no way was anyone connected with game shooting responsible for the supposed decline.

To back up her theory, Alice suggested that “the hen harrier is more numerate than 7 out of the 15 species of birds of prey in this country“. Of course, everyone in Wonderland knew that the hen harrier is able to think and express itself effectively in quantitative terms (or, put more simply, the hen harrier is able to use numbers, i.e. it is “numerate”). How absurd to think otherwise! It’s those fools at the RSPB who are innumerate – they think two and two makes four, when clearly it makes 330 (which coincidentally is the predicted number of breeding hen harrier pairs that the scientist boffins clowns say are ‘missing’ from the oh-so wildlife-friendly grouse moors of northern England).

That’s the end of this fairytale – tune in next time to find out why the holocaust never happened. Night night, children, and beware of falling down rabbit holes! Although to be honest, there’s not much chance of that as most of them are stuffed with the corpses of illegally killed raptors.

For those of us living in the real world and not some kind of fantastical Wonderland like Alice and her chums, you might be interested in this newsblast that was written by Alice Barnard, Chief Exec of the Countryside Alliance (although not for much longer – see here) that arrived in my inbox this morning:

“The RSPB’s bird of prey officer has recently been claiming that the status of the hen harrier in England is so precarious due to illegal killing that he believes one wet spring or a fire at the wrong time of year could result in it becoming extinct. However, as the RSPB knows only too well, the term extinction is defined by the death of the very last of a kind, and its use to describe the future of the hen harrier is therefore nothing short of absurd; as is its claim that there are only 4 breeding pairs left in England.

In addition to Britain, the hen harrier occurs in a multitude of countries across the northern hemisphere, including North America, Europe and Asia. It has an extremely large population which is currently thought to be 167,000 breeding females, with no significant decline in that population globally. Internationally it is classified as a species of “Least Conservation Concern”, and with 663 pairs in the UK, the hen harrier is more numerate than 7 out of the 15 species of birds of prey in this country. Although only 4 pairs may have bred successfully in England in 2011, many hen harriers can be observed moving around the country throughout the year. The issue, therefore, is that of poor breeding success; not extinction.

There are numerous factors that can result in the poor breeding success of hen harriers, and in 2009 the RSPB and Natural England reported that it was entirely due to natural causes; not illegal persecution as all too frequently claimed by the RSPB. Indeed there have been no confirmed cases of persecution against the species for the last 5 years.

The fact is that hen harriers are vulnerable to predation by foxes and other birds of prey, lack of available prey, unintentional disturbance and by weather and accidental fires; or a combination of any of these. It also appears that there are other factors at play of which we are currently unaware, such as on the Isle of Man, where the RSPB’s 2010 survey found that the population of hen harriers had halved, for reasons still unknown.

We will continue to challenge the RSPB’s assertions of persecution against birds of prey as part of our promotion and defence of the shooting community and the valuable conservation work they do.

Alice Barnard, Chief Executive, Countryside Alliance”.

Here is a link to the RSPB press release to which Alice may be referring (see here). Let’s hope that in her new position as Chief Exec of “a leading Education charity“, Alice does not need to use comprehension skills (the RSPB press release clearly states that they are referring to an ENGLISH hen harrier extinction, not a global one as Alice tries to infer), nor literacy skills (look up the word ‘numerate’, love). Maybe she’d be better sticking to fairytales – she does those quite well.

So who is set to replace Alice in Wonderland? Step forward some military guru, former head of the UK field army, the amusingly named Lieutenant General Sir Barney White-Spunner (see here). Are they expecting a war?

Kim Jong-il is dead but the art of propaganda lives on

North Korean despot Kim Jong-il may be dead but the art of propaganda is alive and kicking here in the UK. A fine example of this is displayed in the latest [January 2012] edition of Modern Gamekeeping, the monthly rag for UK gamekeepers, where there are more calls for the introduction of licences to cull raptors.

It begins in the editorial at the front. Peter Carr dedicates a whole page to the issue of raptor persecution, starting off with condemnation of illegal raptor poisoning [good], but quickly moving on to ‘justify’ the need for legal raptor culling [not so good]. Part of this ‘justification’ includes the following statement:

“Buzzards, sparrowhawks, goshawks, hen harriers, and tawny owls are the raptor species that cause us the most problems, though the little owl’s destructive power should not be discounted. All are doing well in most areas of the UK…“

Oh dear. But when did facts ever get in the way of 100 year-old anti-raptor propaganda? And here is evidence, should any more be needed, that gamekeepers will not stop at licensed buzzard killing. Sparrowhawks, goshawks, tawny owls and little owls are all apparent targets, and hen harriers too, if they can find any left to kill.

Carr goes on to rally the troops, calling for more strenuous lobbying and “the need for a sensible balance in our countryside“. Presumably that ‘sensible balance’ includes the continued annual release of 40+ million non-native gamebirds into our countryside  and the (mis)management of our uplands to produce artificially-high densities of red grouse, all to the detriment of any native predators that share the habitat?

His editorial ends with this: “Raptor control licences will come, but we must hasten the process with valid argument and an impeccable record of keeping our own house in order“. If these two premises are the ones that will dictate whether raptor culling licences are issued, then conservationists need not fear that they’ll be issued any time soon.

The propaganda continues later in the rag….more on this in the next post…

Environment Minister ‘answers’ question about the lost Langholm hen harriers

Following yesterday’s report that Elaine Murray MSP had asked the Scottish Executive for information about the young hen harriers from the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project (see here), Environment Minister Stewart Stevenson has provided a response:

S4W-04336 Elaine Murray: To ask the Scottish Executive what information it has regarding the number of hen harriers that have been satellite tagged as part of the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project and what is known about the whereabouts of those birds.

Stewart Stevenson: In 2010, three hen harriers were satellite tagged as part of the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project. All three have now stopped transmitting. One tag was recovered at Langholm, with no trace of the bird. The other two birds were tracked through southern Scotland, south west England and France and Spain. No tags or birds have been found.

In 2011, three birds were satellite tagged and all have now stopped transmitting. Transmissions were last received from south of Carlisle, in the Moorfoot Hills and France. No tags or birds have been found and there are no indications of the cause of the lost signals.

The life expectancy of the satellite tags used is between a few months to around three years. While live, the tags provide valuable information on hen harrier range and dispersal.

(Link to parliamentary questions and answers here)

It’s a shame the Environment Minister didn’t elaborate further, although he was probably just reciting the information he’d been given, possibly from government advisors at SNH or maybe from Natural England, who are responsible for the satellite tag data from Langholm. Could the lack of transparency be because two of the locations (in the Moorfoot Hills and in the Northern Pennines to the south east of Carlisle) from where the last known signals were transmitted, just happen to be grouse moors? And not just any old grouse moors. One grouse moor with a long history of alleged raptor persecution (dead raptors and poisoned bait found on different occasions but no convictions) and one grouse moor with a head keeper and under keeper convicted of raptor persecution (pole trapping and inproper storage and use of a pesticide). One of these estates has already been named on the Raptor Politics website (see here and here).

Is it just an unfortunate coincidence that the signals from these two young hen harriers failed after they were tracked to these two moors? It could well be. But it’s very hard to be optimistic when we hear that the hen harrier in England is just four precious nests away from extinction (see here).

Perhaps one of these days the Langholm Project officials will deem us all worthy of knowing all the facts about this publicly-funded project, which would allow us all to draw our own conclusions instead of being spoon-fed a clearly sterilised version of events.

Perhaps you don’t want to wait for something that might never happen though. In which case, you can email the Natural England spokesperson for the Langholm Project (press officer Emma Lusby) and ask her yourself: emma.lusby@naturalengland.org.uk

Questions on the whereabouts of Langholm hen harriers asked in parliament

Elaine Murray MSP has put forward a question to the Scottish Executive concerning the whereabouts of the tagged hen harriers from the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project:

S4W-04336 Elaine Murray: To ask the Scottish Executive what information it has regarding the number of hen harriers that have been satellite tagged as part of the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project and what is known about the whereabouts of those birds.

The written answer is due to be provided on 16 December 2011, according to the Scottish Parliament website.

Some background to the mysterious disappearance of these birds can be found here

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.