Tag: shooting

29 ‘missing’ Hen Harriers & nearly 40 birds of prey poisoned, trapped or shot in Yorkshire Dales National Park since 2015

Media attention has been drawn to the Yorkshire Dales National Park this week, following the RSPB’s press release on the suspicious disappearance of a satellite-tagged Hen Harrier named ‘Sita’.

When it comes to the illegal killing of birds of prey, the Yorkshire Dales National Park is rarely out of the news, and that’s hardly surprising when 29 satellite-tagged Hen Harriers have gone ‘missing’ there and 39 other raptors have been found poisoned, trapped or shot there since 2015, including Peregrines, Hen Harriers, Red Kites and Buzzards.

Yorkshire Dales National Park. Photo by Ruth Tingay

Given these appalling figures, the RSPB has described the Yorkshire Dales National Park as a ‘no-fly zone for birds of prey’.

High profile cases within the National Park have included the conviction of a gamekeeper who was filmed shooting two Short-eared Owls on a grouse moor and then stamping the corpse of one of them into the peat and shoving the other one inside a drystone wall (here); a gamekeeper filmed on a grouse moor using a tethered Eagle Owl to attract Buzzards that he then shot and killed from close range (here); the stamping to death of four Hen Harrier chicks in a nest on a grouse moor (after obscuring the camera pointing at the nest, here); the grisly death of a Hen Harrier caused by his head and leg being pulled off whilst he was still alive (here); and three individuals caught on camera on a grouse moor discussing the shooting and killing of a Buzzard and a Raven before apparently shooting and killing a Hen Harrier (here) – one gamekeeper has been charged with conspiracy to kill a Hen Harrier, he has pleaded not guilty and his case will proceed to trial in January 2026 after his barrister failed in his attempt to have the case thrown out on a legal technicality.

The Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority has also long recognised the extent of this criminal activity and has responded to public concern (e.g. see here and here). Earlier this year the Park Authority terminated its five-year ‘partnership’ with the grouse shooting industry to tackle these crimes, after recognising the futility of this endeavour. Two conservation organisations (the RSPB and the Northern England Raptor Forum) had already walked away from the sham in 2023 and 2024 respectively.

In an article published a couple of days ago by the Craven Herald & Pioneer, Mark Corner, a member of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority is quoted saying the continued illegal killing of raptors in the Park was “a crying shame“.

He added: “As the member champion for the natural environment, I’m personally embarrassed that we are the worst spot in the country in terms of the illegal killing of birds.”

In the same article, there’s an hilarious quote from the Yorkshire Dales Moorland Group, which is one of a number of regional groups set up in 2015 to represent local grouse moor owners and their gamekeepers in an attempt to counter the bad publicity about ongoing illegal raptor persecution. I think that members of most of these regional moorland groups have been, or still are, the subject of police investigations into illegal raptor persecution.

A spokesperson for the Yorkshire Dales Moorland Group reportedly told the reporter that ‘hen harrier numbers were at a 200-year high across the uplands’.

That’s simply not true – Hen Harrier breeding attempts on grouse moors across the north of England have been in sharp decline over the last two years – the only areas where they remain stable is on land managed for conservation rather than for Red Grouse shooting.

According to its FaceBook page, the Yorkshire Dales Moorland Group claims to have “around 100,000 acres of managed uplands here in the Dales where the estates are members of this group (virtually all of the moors)“.

Why is it then, there were only two Hen Harrier breeding attempts in 2025 across the whole of the Yorkshire Dales and neighbouring Nidderdale? I’d like the Moorland Group to provide a plausible explanation for these absences.

The Yorkshire Dales Moorland Group also told the Craven Herald reporter:

“Our keepers have and will always assist the police in searches for missing persons, lost dogs or missing birds. Tag failure is rare but not unheard of.

“The default accusation that persecution is responsible is regrettable. The conservation work undertaken by moor keepers is commendable as can be seen by the abundance of raptors and other rare species in the Dales“.

What “abundance of raptors” are those then? All the dead ones? Or just the ones that are allowed to breed because they don’t pose any threat to Red Grouse stocks?

And if these grouse shooting estates are so keen to help the police, how many of them signed the letter last year agreeing to allow the police to enter the land and use equipment for the purposes of crime prevention and detection? Did any of them sign it?

And if these gamekeepers are so keen to help police investigations, how many of them have given ‘no comment’ responses when interviewed about suspected raptor persecution crimes on these moors? Maybe it’d be quicker to count how many gamekeeper didn’t give a ‘no comment’ interview.

The article also quotes Alex Farrell, Head of Uplands at BASC:

“As a committed conservation organisation, we are taking progressive steps with our partners to oversee the continued recovery of hen harriers.

“Figures released by Natural England today show that collaborative effort resulted in 106 fledged hen harrier chicks in England this year – up from 80 last year“.

What “progressive steps” is BASC taking?

Oh, and those figures released by Natural England show that the small increase in Hen Harrier fledging rates are in spite of, not because of, any so-called ‘collaborative effort’ from the grouse shooting industry.

The data couldn’t be any clearer (see here).

17 months (& waiting) for NatureScot to make decision on General Licence restriction relating to ‘shooting & killing’ of sleeping Golden Eagle called Merrick

The Scottish Government’s nature advisory agency, NatureScot, has been now been procrastinating for 17 months on whether to impose a sanction on an estate in relation to the ‘shooting and killing’ of a sleeping Golden Eagle called Merrick.

Merrick was a young satellite-tagged Golden Eagle, released in south Scotland in 2022 as part of the South Scotland Golden Eagle Project, a lottery-funded conservation initiative which translocated young Golden Eagles from various sites across north Scotland to boost the tiny remnants of the Golden Eagle breeding population in south Scotland that had previously been decimated by illegal persecution and had become isolated by geographic barriers.

Camera trap photo of golden eagle Merrick in 2022, from South Scotland Golden Eagle Project

A year after her release, which had seen her fly around south Scotland and down into northern England and back, on 12 October 2023 Merrick’s satellite tag suddenly and inexplicably stopped transmitting from a roost site in the Moorfoot Hills in the Scottish Borders where she’d been sleeping overnight.

A project officer from the South Scotland Golden Eagle Project went to her last known location where he found Merrick’s feathers and blood directly below her roost tree. Police Scotland later determined from the evidence that she’d been ‘shot and killed’ and that someone had then ‘removed her body and destroyed her satellite tag’ (see here).

There was limited scope for anyone to be charged and prosecuted for killing this eagle unless someone in the know came forward with sufficient evidence to identify the individual(s) responsible. In addition, the prospect of an estate having its grouse-shooting licence withdrawn as a consequence of this crime was zero, given that this offence took place prior to the enactment of the Wildlife & Muirbun (Scotland) Act 2024.

That just left a General Licence restriction as a possible sanction. Not that I’d describe a GL restriction as an effective sanction, for reasons that have been explored previously on this blog (e.g. here and here). Nevertheless, it’s still something and, given the high-profile of Merrick’s death, you might think that making a decision on whether to impose a GL restriction would be a high priority for NatureScot.

I wrote about NatureScot’s procrastination on this case in August (see here), after receiving a response to a Freedom of Information request I’d lodged in June 2025. That response confirmed that NatureScot had received an information package from Police Scotland, on which it would base its GL restriction decision, in April 2024.

Seventeen months on and we’re now at the end of September 2025 and there’s still no sign of a decision from NatureScot.

What’s the hold up? Why hasn’t this decision been a priority for NatureScot?

What sort of message does NatureScot’s procrastination send out to others who might be thinking of ‘getting rid’ of a Golden Eagle in south Scotland, or any other part of Scotland for that matter?

The consequences became very clear yesterday when it was announced that two more satellite-tagged Golden Eagles from the South Scotland project had ‘disappeared’ in suspicious circumstances.

More detail on court ruling accepting admissibility of RSPB’s covert surveillance in prosecution of gamekeeper accused of conspiracy to kill a Hen Harrier

Earlier this month a judge ruled that covert video surveillance obtained by the RSPB is admissible evidence in the prosecution of gamekeeper Racster Dingwall, who has been charged in relation to the alleged shooting of a Hen Harrier on a grouse moor (Coniston & Grassington Estate) in the Yorkshire Dales National Park on 2nd October 2024.

Mr Dingwall pleaded not guilty to two charges at an earlier court hearing at Skipton Magistrates’ Court in May 2025. Those two charges are:

  1. Possession of an article capable of being used to commit a summary offence under Section 1 to 13 or 15 to 17 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act;
  2. Encourage/assist in the commission of a summary offence believing it will be committed.

The pre-trial hearing at York Magistrates’ Court on 9 September 2025 was specifically to hear legal argument about the admissibility of the RSPB’s video evidence, on which this prosecution is based.

I wrote briefly about the judge’s decision to accept the RSPB’s video evidence at the hearing on 9 September and said I would elaborate further when I had the time.

The following commentary seeks to provide more information about the judge’s decision and is based entirely on the notes I made during that hearing.

York Magistrates’ Court. Photo by Ruth Tingay

This pre-trial hearing was held before District Judge Adrian Lower. The involvement of a District Judge (professionally and legally qualified) is perhaps the reason why this case moved from Skipton Magistrates’ Court to York Magistrates’ Court.

District Judges don’t tend to sit in the smaller, or rural courts, but where a case is legally complex then there is often a request to move the case to another court to be heard before a District Judge rather than the lay magistrates (also known as Justices of the Peace) in a smaller court, who are volunteers and not legally trained/qualified to the extent of a District Judge.

Mr Dingwall and his solicitor did not attend the pre-trial hearing at York on 9 September 2025 – District Judge (DJ) Lower acknowledged that Mr Dingwall had been excused (the reason for his absence wasn’t given in open court).

The sole representative in court for Mr Dingwall was his barrister, Mr Justin Rouse KC. Long-term blog readers may recognise this name – Mr Rouse KC represented a gamekeeper from the Bleasdale Estate in Bowland, Lancashire in 2017-2018 who had been charged with nine offences relating to the alleged killing of two Peregrines on this grouse-shooting estate in 2016 in appalling circumstances. The prosecution had relied heavily on covert surveillance provided by the RSPB but the case collapsed when the presiding District Judge accepted Mr Rouse’s defence argument that the evidence should be ruled inadmissible (not necessarily on the strength of Mr Rouse’s arguments but more likely on the weakness of the prosecution lawyer, who was hopelessly underprepared for court- see here for detailed commentary on that case).

Appearing for the prosecution (CPS – Crown Prosecution Service) at York Magistrates’ Court on 9 September 2025 was Mr Jody Beaumont.

The hearing opened with DJ Lower stating that he’d read the submissions from both sides (about the admissibility of the RSPB’s video surveillance) and that he didn’t intend to hear a repetition of those submissions in court. He asked whether Mr Rouse KC and Mr Beaumont had anything new to add and both replied that they didn’t.

No doubt DJ Lower wanted to save valuable court time, but his decision not to have the legal arguments presented in open court makes it very difficult to provide an informed commentary on what happened next, because I don’t have the benefit of knowing the exact details of each side’s position.

Nevertheless, a general sense of the defence’s argument could be gleaned from some of the remarks made later by DJ Lower and it became apparent that there were two main issues to be discussed – the admissibility of the video evidence and an issue about disclosure.

The interpretation that follows is based on my understanding of what was said and should be viewed with appropriate caution given the circumstances just described.

It was clear that Mr Rouse KC for the defence had made an application to the court to exclude the RSPB’s video evidence (and thus have the case dismissed), under Section 78 of the Police & Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE).

Section 78:

‘…..In any proceedings the court may refuse to allow evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely to be given if it appears to the court, that, having regard to all the circumstances, including the circumstances in which the evidence was obtained, the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it’.

DJ Lower said that Mr Rouse’s view was that the RSPB should be viewed as a public authority in the way it gathered evidence (i.e. regulated by various legislation such as the Human Rights Act 1998 & Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) which controls the manner of covert surveillance operations) – this is a very similar argument to the one Mr Rouse used in the Bleasdale case and, if accepted by the court in this latest case, would result in the RSPB’s evidence being ruled inadmissible because the RSPB hadn’t operated by the provisions required of a public authority in undertaking covert surveillance on private land (i.e. needing authorisation).

DJ Lower said he could not agree with the submission that the RSPB was a ‘public authority’. He said that the RSPB is arguably a substantial business, “a charity like no other“, but that although the RSPB was involved in the investigation, the material had been handed to North Yorkshire Police. He continued, “There is bound to be close coordination between the RSPB and North Yorkshire Police but that doesn’t mean that the RSPB becomes a public authority and is regulated as such by various legislation“.

DJ Lower agreed that there needs to be consideration about whether the RSPB should be considered a public authority but that this was not a decision a judge could make – it should be for Parliament to consider.

He said that the crux of the S.78 application was – regardless of whether the RSPB is or isn’t a public authority – would submission of the evidence have such an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings? He said this was a discretionary judgement for the court to make and in his judgement, “there would be no adverse affect“.

He continued: “The RSPB evidence has been subject to review by the CPS and it is their decision to prosecute or not. I cannot see how admitting the evidence gathered from the RSPB would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings. I am not prepared to dismiss the case“.

DJ Lower then referred to an alleged abuse of process, claimed by the defence (the details of this are unknown). DJ Lower asked Mr Rouse whether he had anything more to say on that allegation and Mr Rouse accepted that it had been addressed by the judge.

The legal argument then moved on to the disclosure issues (the details of which are unknown, which made the discussion confusing).

There seemed to be an argument about the defence not yet having had access to between 70-80 hours worth of RSPB video footage. Mr Beaumont (CPS) told the court that there was an ongoing discussion about how to manage the files and send them to the defence, but given that ‘senior management’ were involved, “this should be sorted out very soon“.

The defence was interested in a series of photographs taken by the RSPB between 16 September – 19 October 2024 consisting of “vehicles, houses, males, dogs and moorland“. Mr Rouse thought they may be capable of undermining the defence.

Mr Rouse said that because the RSPB investigators say they were acting on intelligence, the defence had asked for that intelligence material that led the RSPB to installing the surveillance equipment.

Mr Rouse continued, saying the defence’s principal concern about the disclosure of footage was the extent of “data breaches for the defendant and others recorded when they should not have been recorded” because “the RSPB were trespassing and the capture of data was unlawful“.

Mr Rouse also raised concerns about the police’s Section 19 (WCA) search of the moor. He asked how the police knew where to search, was the RSPB involved in that search, and if so, the identities of any RSPB staff involved should be disclosed. DJ Lower and Mr Beaumont agreed.

DJ Lower dismissed Mr Rouse’s concerns over privacy because any images captured by the RSPB could be “pixellated to protect the identity of members of the public“.

He suggested the discussion about disclosure should be continued between the defence and the prosecution, and that disclosure of all relevant evidence should take place within 28 days, and at the latest by 4pm on 7th October 2025.

DJ Lower set a two-day trial date (29th-30th January 2026, pending witness availability) at York Magistrates’ Court and said the case would be reserved for him.

He granted Mr Dingwall unconditional bail and asked his representative to ensure Mr Dingwall understood the consequences of non-attendance at court on 29 January 2026.

NB: Because criminal legal proceedings are live, the comment facility has been switched off.

Good news! Natural England pulls the plug on ‘reintroduction’ of Hen Harriers to southern England

It’s been a long time coming, but today Natural England has announced it is finally pulling the plug on its project to ‘reintroduce’ Hen Harriers to southern England.

It may sound odd that a pro-raptor conservationist sees this as good news, but I have long argued against this project, for a number of reasons, but predominantly because I saw it as an unhelpful distraction to tackling the real issue – that of the illegal killing of Hen Harriers on the grouse moors of northern Britain.

Hen Harrier by Pete Walkden

Natural England has been planning a so-called ‘reintroduction’ of hen harriers to southern England since 2016, as part of DEFRA’s ludicrous Hen Harrier Action Plan.

I think the proposed reintroduction project was initially supported by the pro-grouse shooting lobby because they thought that Hen Harriers could be removed from the northern grouse moors (under the equally ludicrous brood meddling scheme) and released into southern England, thus removing what they saw as a ‘problem species’ to the other end of the country, leaving them to get on with killing Red Grouse for fun (and money) without those pesky Hen Harriers ruining their sport (and profit).

An apt cartoon depicting what many of us saw as the intentions of the stakeholders in Defra’s Hen Harrier Action Plan. Cartoon by Gerard Hobley.

However, that plan was thwarted when it was pointed out that it would be a breach of international legislation to remove Hen Harriers from Special Protection Areas (SPAs) that had been designated specifically for Hen Harriers, and release them elsewhere.

I suspect that the pro-grouse shooting lobby continued to support the proposed ‘reintroduction’ into southern England because they knew that if even a handful of Hen Harriers were successful in the south, it would take the heat / attention off the continued illegal killing in the north.

We saw exactly this, when the brood meddling trial resulted in a few more pairs of Hen Harriers being allowed to breed – the ongoing illegal killing was simply brushed under the carpet by the grouse shooting lobby, and in many cases, outright denied using comically farcical logic (e.g. here) or grotesquely distorted reasoning (e.g. here).

But Hen Harriers don’t need to be ‘reintroduced’ to southern England, or anywhere else in the UK for that matter. They are perfectly capable of breeding in the wild and recolonising their former range, over a relatively short space of time, IF, and only IF, their survival isn’t curtailed by grouse moor gamekeepers shooting, trapping and poisoning them, pulling off their heads and legs, or stamping on their eggs and chicks.

Instead of wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds on this distraction project over many years, those funds could instead have been directed towards a focused enforcement plan to bring those criminals to justice.

For those interested, I’ve written extensively about this project since November 2016 and you can find links to the key blog posts here.

Here is today’s announcement from Natural England about the conclusion of the project:

NATURAL ENGLAND HEN HARRIER PROGRAMME – UPDATE TO SOUTHERN REINTRODUCTION PROJECT

By Sofía Muñoz, Senior Officer, Hen Harrier Southern Reintroduction

Background

The Hen Harrier Southern Reintroduction Project was set up in 2018 with the aim of establishing a wild, farmland-nesting population of hen harriers (Circus cyaneus) in southern England. 

The hen harrier is an iconic species and one of the UK’s rarest and most persecuted birds of prey. The combination of its beauty, charisma and rarity make this a highly cherished and valued bird. Hen harriers were once common across the UK but were driven to extinction across most of the British Isles during the 1800s. More recently, Natural England and many organisations have put great effort into helping them recolonise parts of Scotland and northern England. 

In England, their numbers are now estimated to have risen to 50 territorial pairs recorded in 2023, from four territorial pairs in 2016 – an increase of 1150%. Despite this increase in numbers, hen harriers remain at risk from illegal killing and disturbance, which is where human activities disrupt nesting sites, which can cause parent birds to abandon their nest and lead to failed eggs or chick deaths. 

Increasing hen harrier numbers is a particularly challenging task as they have a strong inclination to return to the same place they have hatched and fledged, meaning they don’t spread areas easily.  

Project timeline

In 2018, the Hen Harrier Southern Reintroduction project was conceived to encourage recolonisation of hen harriers further south in the UK. The project initially sought to translocate young hen harriers from continental Europe for release in the UK. However, collaboration between EU states and new importation rules for animals following the UK’s exit from the EU meant that translocation of young fledging birds became unfeasible due to extensive quarantine periods.   

Instead, a pioneering captive conservation breeding programme was developed which focussed on releasing offspring bred in the UK from adult birds imported from France and Spain. Beginning in late 2022, this ambitious programme hoped to boost the number of hen harriers in the UK with minimal impact on wild populations. The project sought to release a minimum of 100 juvenile hen harriers over a five-year period to ensure the best chances of success. 

In continental Europe, hen harriers nest on farmland which is directly comparable to much of the arable landscape across southern England. As part of the project, release pens were situated among an arable crop and these would be used to introduce chicks to the site from the captive breeding facility several weeks before fledging. It was hoped that this would enable them to familiarise themselves with the habitat and area around the release site, leading to them returning to breed in this same location in subsequent years. 

Latest situation

The third breeding season for the captive birds began in 2025. While the adult birds had not bred successfully in the first two years of the programme, advances in their breeding behaviour over the two years (2023; 2024) had been noted. This meant that the team were optimistic that that things were moving in the right direction to eventually produce chicks for release. However, to the team’s disappointment, the females unfortunately laid infertile eggs in 2025, meaning that no chicks would be released this year.  

Future of the project

The Southern Reintroduction project constitutes one of six components of the Joint action plan for the recovery of the English hen harrier population (2016) being delivered by Natural England, with the support of DEFRA. It has been running in parallel with other activities, such as the long-term monitoring of the species in northern England. 

Following a thorough review, it has become clear that Natural England is no longer in a position to provide the long-term funding and resource needed to continue delivering the Hen Harrier Southern Reintroduction project, despite the progress to date. The difficult decision has therefore been made to conclude this project.  

The welfare of the hen harriers held in captivity for the conservation breeding programme remains the priority for the project through its closing phase. A number of options exist for the birds, and these will be explored in full. As they are unsuitable for release into the wild, they will be transferred into the care of a suitable host organisation. Organisations will be considered suitable where they are able to ensure the ongoing welfare of the birds for the remainder of their natural lives. In addition, Natural England would not preclude continuation of the conservation breeding programme under the leadership of the chosen organisation if the priority of welfare is maintained.  

Informing future conservation

Knowledge acquired through the delivery of this project can help to inform other conservation projects and expand our understanding of hen harrier biology. We have, for instance, gained a deeper insight into the health, genetics, and migratory patterns of hen harriers. 

We would like to express our gratitude to all our partners, who have contributed their time, expertise, and commitment to this project over the years. 

ENDS

I’ve asked Natural England for a copy of what it calls its “thorough review” of this failed project.

I’ll report if/when Natural England sends it to me.

Don’t hold your breath though, I’m still waiting for NE to send me a copy of its Hen Harrier Brood Meddling Social Science report that I asked for in April 2025 (here).

Oh, and we’re STILL waiting for NE to release this year’s Hen Harrier breeding figures, AND to release the details of at least seven post-mortem reports on dead Hen Harriers, many of them dating back over a year (here). More commentary on that from me to come shortly…

Judge rules RSPB covert video surveillance is admissible evidence in prosecution of gamekeeper Racster Dingwall

BREAKING NEWS….AND IT’S EXCELLENT NEWS!

The District Judge presiding at York Magistrates Court has today ruled that the RSPB’s covert video and audio surveillance is to be considered admissible evidence in relation to the prosecution of gamekeeper Racster Dingwall.

He did not accept the defence’s argument that inclusion of the covert surveillance would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings.

Mark Thomas and Ian Thomson from the RSPB’s Investigation Team attended York Magistrates Court today. Photo: Ruth Tingay

The case now moves to trial in January 2026 unless Mr Dingwall changes his not guilty plea in light of today’s ruling.

I’ll write a longer blog in the coming days, setting out the arguments and the Judge’s explanation for his decision.

In haste…

NB: Comments turned off as criminal proceedings are still live.

UPDATE 25 September 2025: More detail on court ruling accepting admissibility of RSPB’s covert surveillance in prosecution of gamekeeper accused of conspiracy to kill a Hen Harrier (here)

Gamekeeper Racster Dingwall back in court today for case relating to Hen Harrier shooting on a grouse moor in Yorkshire Dales National Park

Gamekeeper Racster Dingwall, 34, will appear at York Magistrates Court today for a hearing linked to his alleged involvement with the shooting of a Hen Harrier on a grouse moor (Coniston & Grassington Estate) in the Yorkshire Dales National Park on 2nd October 2024. He has pleaded not guilty.

This prosecution relies on the covert footage filmed by the RSPB’s Investigations team last autumn and later shown on Channel 4 News (here).

York Magistrates Court. Photo by Ruth Tingay

Dingwall faces two charges, according to the court notice:

  1. Possession of an article capable of being used to commit and summary offence under Section 1 to 13 or 15 to 17 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act;
  2. Encourage/assist in the commission of a summary offence believing it will be committed.

Today’s pre-trial hearing is expected to focus on legal arguments about the admissibility of the RSPB’s covert footage.

This was entirely to be expected. The defence team will be doing its best to have the evidence ruled inadmissible because without it, the prosecution will collapse.

We’ve been here many times before in similar cases. The last one I watched where the judge ruled the RSPB’s footage to be inadmissible was back in 2018, in relation to the illegal and brutal killing of two Peregrines on a grouse moor in Bowland. The legal arguments barely got going because the CPS lawyer was monumentally under-prepared, he hadn’t even watched the video footage in question, and was unable to answer the judge’s questions about it. The judge was really left with no other option than to rule the footage inadmissible and the case collapsed as a result (see here for more detailed blogs about that fiasco).

NB: Comments are closed until criminal proceedings have concluded.

Peregrine from Charing Cross Hospital found with shotgun pellet in leg

One of London’s resident breeding Peregrines, Tom, from Charing Cross Hospital in Hammersmith, is receiving veterinary care after an x-ray revealed a shotgun pellet lodged in his leg.

According to reports on social media, Tom was found grounded at the weekend and was taken for assessment at the South Essex Wildlife Hospital. It’s not clear from the information published whether the shotgun pellet was the cause of his grounding or whether it is an old injury that he’d survived.

All photos from South Essex Wildlife Hospital

Hopefully Tom will make a speedy recovery and can be returned to his territory ASAP.

The South Essex Wildlife Hospital has featured a few times on this blog, involved in the treatment and often successful rehabilitation of shot raptors from the south-east. It’s a registered charity – if you’d like to make a donation to support its work, please click here.

Hen Harrier persecution “is very much linked to grouse shooting” – Craig Best, National Trust General Manager, Peak District

Following yesterday’s news of a successful Hen Harrier breeding attempt this year on National Trust-owned moorland in the Peak District National Park (here), Craig Best, the NT’s General Manager in the High Peak, was interviewed on BBC Radio Derby about the significance of the successful nest and the importance of satellite-tagging the young birds (this year’s two Peak District tags have been paid for by the National Trust and the Peak District National Park).

Craig Best, National Trust General Manager, High Peak (photo supplied)

Craig is well known as an experienced, committed and passionate advocate for restoring the uplands and is the driving force behind significant & welcome changes in how the NT’s moorlands are managed in the High Peak (e.g. see here, here, here and here for earlier blogs).

He’s also not someone who pretends that illegal raptor persecution isn’t an ongoing issue and for that alone, he deserves much kudos.

The interview on BBC Radio Derby with host Becky Measures is just four minutes long and appears to be a cut from a wider conversation, but Craig gets his point across about Hen Harrier persecution. It can be heard here and is available on BBC Sounds for a year.

Here’s the transcript:

Craig Best: It’s brilliant that we’re seeing Hen Harriers nest on our land, on National Trust land in the High Peak, so yeah, you’re right, these birds suffer persecution, in fact they’re the most persecuted bird of prey in the UK.

Becky Measures: Why?

Craig Best: Well, all these birds nest on open moorland in really remote places, and what we’re finding is the vast majority of persecution happens on or near to land managed for grouse shooting. Hen Harriers obviously have to eat, so they’ll eat small mammals such as voles and shrews, but they’ll also take chicks of birds, and I’m sure they will take grouse chicks as well, so unfortunately these birds suffer high levels of persecution across the UK and they’re quite often shot.

Becky Measures: So how does tagging, then, protect them?

Craig Best: Yeah, so interestingly, we tag these birds, which is brilliant because it gives us data on where they fly, and some of these birds fly across the UK, we’ve even had some of the Hen Harriers that we’ve tagged in the past fly to places like France, so they cover huge distances, that gives us lots of information, it gives us information where they roost, where they might be feeding, but importantly, these tags are very expensive, they’re about a thousand quid each, but importantly they track the birds and when the bird ‘mysteriously disappears’ we’ve got some idea where that happens.

Beck Measures: Right, ok, so you’re able to kind of keep an eye on them and know what their movements are. It must be difficult to get the tags on them, though?

Craig Best: Yeah, so the tags are, I mean the people who do it are licenced by Natural England and we’re working really closely with our colleagues at the RSPB, but also there’s a volunteer group in the Peak District called the Peak District Raptor Group and all these individuals are experts, and when the birds are young on the nest, not able to fly, we approach them and carefully apply the tag.

But the tag provides much needed protection, so they’re less likely to be shot because if that tag stops working, or we find it, you know we don’t get the tag movements, clearly that could link to a persecution incident. Not always, sometimes these birds, like many other animals do, die naturally, but quite often what we’re finding across the UK and in the Peak District and places like North Yorkshire, these birds are persecuted and are shot in these remote areas and it’s very much linked to grouse shooting.

We invest millions in the upland landscape in the High Peak to restore our peatlands, restore the peat, you know, this landscape is fantastic for our drinking water, a lot of rain falls on our drinking water so whether you live in Sheffield or Manchester, that’s where it comes from, and we restore the landscape by establishing trees, because these places are just fantastic for nature and provide lots of services, such as flood risk reductions for people’s homes and businesses, but of course we invest this money and these pinnacle species such as Hen Harriers should be in much greater numbers. I think there’s something in order of 30-40 breeding pairs across the UK* so they’re really at risk of extinction if this persecution continues, but because we invest so much money, it’d be such a shame to not have these spectacular birds flying around and you know, like you referenced earlier on, your listeners and many people will have watched Springwatch and we saw a pair of Hen Harriers feeding and flying around and they’re just beautiful to look at and of course they have the right to exist like many other animals in the Peak District.

ENDS

*Craig was referring to England, not the UK. In 2024 there was a total of 34 Hen Harrier breeding attempts in England, of which 25 were successful, which is lower than the last two years, according to Natural England.

Chick success after translocated Golden Eagle breeds with one of ‘our’ wild satellite-tagged birds in south Scotland

One of the translocated Golden Eagles in southern Scotland has bred with one of ‘our’ wild satellite-tagged eagles, resulting in the successful fledging of a male eaglet.

This is the first fledging event from a nest of one of the translocated eagles and marks a major milestone for the South Scotland Golden Eagle Project.

The chick has been named ‘Princeling’ by Sir David Attenborough.

Golden Eagle chick ‘Princeling’ having a satellite tag fitted (Photo copyright Ian Georgeson)

The breeding pair got together in 2024 and built up a nest but didn’t breed. That’s not unusual behaviour for young Golden Eagles who can take up to six years to mature, although in areas where there’s little competition for territories (e.g. through depletion of the population by persecution, as in south Scotland), breeding can happen much earlier.

Emma, the female, had been translocated to south Scotland in 2021 and was named by the Scottish Government’s then Biodiversity Minister, Lorna Slater MSP, in memory of the women’s rights and equality advocate, Emma Ritch.

Keith, the male, fledged from a wild nest in Dumfries & Galloway in 2018 and was named Keith after a member of the local Raptor Study Group. He was satellite-tagged as part of a project run by RPUK and Chris Packham in association with experts from the Scottish Raptor Study Group and we’ve been tracking his movements ever since.

Here he is prior to fledging in 2018 (Keith is on the right, one of his parents on the left). This is footage from a nest camera which are routinely installed (under licence) at nest sites to help researchers monitor young eagles after they’ve been fitted with a satellite tag to ensure the tag/harness is not causing any health or welfare issues.

Photo copyright Scottish Raptor Study Group

After dispersing from his natal territory in November 2018, Keith hung around in Dumfries & Galloway for a few months before then suddenly making a beeline for the border and in to England. He stayed in Northumberland for a while (and was joined by at least one other tagged Golden Eagle that had been translocated to south Scotland) before heading back in to Scotland and heading over to his old haunts in SW Scotland before eventually finding his own territory and settling there in October 2023.

After their unsuccessful breeding attempt in spring 2024, Keith and Emma were photographed together in October 2024 on a camera trap at a food platform provided by the South Scotland Golden Eagle Project. They looked to be in excellent condition:

Keith on the right, with the much larger female Emma. Photo copyright South Scotland Golden Eagle Project

The location of their successful breeding attempt this year has had to remain a secret because, as we’ve seen, (here and here) Golden Eagles, along with many other raptor species, still face the threat of illegal persecution in this region and beyond.

The grouse shooting industry’s grotesque distortion of reality laid bare on Rod Liddle’s radio show

Journalist, broadcaster and Sunday Times columnist Rod Liddle hosted a 20 minute segment on the pros and cons of grouse shooting during his Saturday morning show on Times Radio last Saturday (9th August 2025), as pre-advertised in a blog here last week.

You can listen back to the discussion via the Times Radio website (here: starts at 02:04.05) and you can read / download the transcript here:

Rod Liddle TimesRadio 9Aug2025 Grouse shooting_transciptDownload

There were three interviewees – conservationist Dr Mark Avery, who was the instigator of the now 11-year old campaign to ban driven grouse shooting as detailed in his book, The Inglorious 12th: Conflict in the Uplands; Ben Macdonald, founder and director of a rewilding organisation called Restore; and Andrew Gilruth, CEO of The Moorland Association, the lobbying organisation for grouse moor owners in England.

I won’t comment much on Mark’s contribution – his thoughts on driven grouse shooting will be well known to regular readers of this blog and were characteristically robust.

It was the first time I’d heard Ben Macdonald speak on grouse shooting and although I found his opening remarks quite condescending towards those of us in the conservation sector who have spent years calling out the criminal elements of the driven grouse shooting industry and their unsustainable practices (does Ben think we should all have turned a blind eye?), I found his comments on restoring the ‘fundamentally depleted two-dimensional grouse moor landscape’ to be thoughtful and interesting.

The comments I really want to focus on, though, are those of Andrew Gilruth.

I’ve written previously about Andrew’s predisposition for what I’d call grossly misrepresenting scientific opinion when he worked for the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT), by cherry-picking information that helped present a favourable view of driven grouse shooting (e.g. see here, here and especially here). Whether he did this deliberately or whether he’s just incapable of interpretating scientific output is open to question.

This behaviour of spreading misinformation has continued, though, since he joined the Moorland Association in 2023, and last year resulted in his expulsion from the police-led Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG – a partnership to tackle the illegal killing of birds of prey in England & Wales).

Andrew’s opening line in his conversation with Rod Liddle didn’t bode well if you were hoping for a straight, undistorted conversation:

“… I also welcome, you know, Ben’s point, that Mark could only highlight what’s wrong …”

We don’t know what Rod Liddle asked Mark at the start of the discussion because it wasn’t included in the recording, but given Mark’s response it’s quite likely that he was asked to outline the problems with driven grouse shooting, to set the scene. We don’t know whether Rod asked Mark to speak about how to resolve those issues, but if he did, it wasn’t included in the programme, so for Andrew to argue that, “Mark could only highlight what’s wrong” was the first misrepresentation of many.

Rod moved the conversation swiftly on to the illegal killing of Hen Harriers on grouse moors and Andrew lost his composure within seconds. The sudden increase in his voice pitch was a dead giveaway.

I’ve written before about how the illegal killing of birds of prey is one of the most difficult issues for the driven grouse shooting to defend – because it’s indefensible. And Andrew couldn’t defend the persecution figures so instead he resorted to accusing the RSPB of publishing “unproven, unverified smears“. The irony wasn’t lost on me.

Those so-called “unproven, unverified smears” (actual crime incidents to you and me) have been accepted by everyone, including the Government, Police, Natural England, peer-reviewed journal editors – everyone except the grouse-shooting industry, some of whose members are the ones carrying out these crimes.

There’s now even a dedicated police-led taskforce that has been set-up to tackle these crimes (the Hen Harrier Taskforce), based on clear-eyed evidence, that is specifically targeting certain grouse moor estates in persecution hotspots, because that’s where the crimes are taking place, repeatedly.

To continue to deny that these crimes happen on many driven grouse moors, and to instead claim that they’ve been fabricated by the RSPB, is just absurd, but very, very telling.

Andrew then tried to use some tightly-selected prosecution data (produced by the RSPB – which, er, he’d just accused of being an unreliable source) to demonstrate that gamekeepers weren’t responsible for killing birds of prey. He chose a single year of data (last year’s) that just happened to not include any prosecutions of gamekeepers, and he used that as his sole evidence base to support his argument.

Had he picked any other year from the last fifteen or so, there’d quite likely be a gamekeeper conviction or two in there. However, selecting just a single year of data is wholly misrepresentative when you’re looking at trends, and a trend is exactly what we’re looking at when discussing which profession is most closely linked with the illegal persecution of birds of prey. To reliably identify a long-term trend you need to look at several years worth of data, and when you do that, here’s what the data tell us – it couldn’t be clearer:

From the RSPB’s most recent Birdcrime Report (2023), published Oct 2024

Andrew’s not averse to using long-term trend data when it suits his argument though – he stated that, “Hen Harriers are now at a 200-year high“. The problem with that argument is that he forgot to mention what the baseline was for that trend – Hen Harriers were virtually extirpated (locally extinct) in England as a breeding species by the late 19th Century, primarily due to persecution, so any increase since then is bound to look impressive!

He also forgot to mention that last year the Hen Harrier breeding population in England was in decline again; this year’s figures have not yet been released but the word on the ground is that the numbers have dropped further, and notably on driven grouse moors. The illegal killing continues – at least 143 Hen Harriers have ‘disappeared’ in suspicious circumstances or have been found illegally killed since 2018, most of them on or close to driven grouse moors, with at least 14 more cases yet to be publicised (see here).

I find it endlessly fascinating that the grouse shooting industry will claim ownership of a (short-lived) increase in the Hen Harrier breeding population on driven grouse moors and yet will absolve itself from any responsibility for the illegal killing of Hen Harriers on, er, driven grouse moors.

Rod moved the discussion on to heather burning and Andrew’s contortions were unceasing. He argued that moorland burning has been happening in the UK for 6,000 years, as though a reference to the slash and burn agriculture of the Neolithic period justifies the continued burning of moorland in the 21st Century.

Society, and science, has moved on, and we now know that the repeated burning of blanket bog is inconsistent with the UK’s international responsibilities to maintain/restore blanket bog to favourable conservation status. We know that only 16.4% of the UK’s SAC blanket peatlands are in good conservation condition, and we also know that burning on deep peat grouse moors continues, despite recent legislation that makes it illegal inside protected areas.

In 2023, two grouse moor owners were convicted for burning on deep peat in protected areas, one in the Peak District (here) and one in Nidderdale; embarrassingly, that estate was owned by a Board member of the Moorland Association (here) and that’s perhaps why Andrew failed to mention it.

All in all, I’m thankful that Rod Liddle hosted this discussion. Not because it moved the conversation on – it didn’t, at all – but because I think it demonstrated that The Moorland Association is still utterly incapable of moving with the times. Its grotesque and snide distortion of reality is laid bare for all to see. Negotiation remains futile against such perverse denial.

The campaign to ban driven grouse shooting will continue. Watch this space.