That parakeet video

Good grief, the tabloids had a field day with my short video on AirHeads, about decoying a parakeet that was shredding my apple trees. I was labelled "deranged" by the Evening Standard, and "super posh" by the Mirror.

In fact this destructive alien invader has been on the General Licence for a while, for the specific purpose of allowing people to protect things like... well, fruit trees. That didn't stop the RSPB, Animal Aid, PETA and other loonies making misleading statements to the press, giving the impression that shooting parakeets was probably illegal and I would most likely be banged up.

The video attracted some classic "hate" comments - the usual threats to kill or maim me (you gotta love these animal lovers), including one from a chap so incompetent that his mobile phone number is still just two clicks away from his threat to "put me in a wheelchair for the rest of my life". My favourite was the one that said I deserved to "be sodomised by a large African man". Tautology, racism and homophobia in one short phrase - that's got to be some sort of record!

Anyway, enjoy the video!

Share|

A turning point for conservation?

I take my hat off to Chris Packham. His taste in music may be suspect; his taste in dog breeds even worse. But... he has achieved the impossible. He has dared to challenge the high priests of conservation and produce a programme - broadcast on the BBC no less - that gets right to the heart of the problem.

Watch it here. Do it now, before it drops off iPlayer. Really - whatever you were planning to do tonight, drop it, and watch this instead. This is history being made. A turning point for conservation. We will look back at this programme and say "That's when the tide turned".

Of course, as a shooter, I'm delighted that he used the example of the grey partridge to illustrate a successful conservation project - particularly that he highlighted the excellent work of the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, and Dick Potts. Good grief, he even managed to mention game shooting in a positive light.

But this programme goes much deeper than that. It's an honest look at the reasons behind the catastrophic decline in birds, mammals, insects and wild plants in the UK during my lifetime.

There's no finger pointing and name calling. Just honest interviews with farmers who say, simply, I can't afford to farm wildlife, I have to make a living.

And, crucially, Packham exposes the nonsense of flagship single-species conservation projects run by organisations like the RSPB. Projects that may be great for drumming up political support, funds and membership, but don't tackle the root of the problem.

As an aside, it's ironic to see the RSPB taking corn buntings from the nest, hand-rearing them and then releasing them elsewhere, bragging about the fabulous conservation benefits to this threatened species. When the very idea of doing the exact same thing with hen harriers makes their blood boil with fake rage at the shooting estates that would love to work with them on such a project.

Anyway, back to the point. I have enjoyed watching the pragmatic Packham bite his tongue when soppy Kate Humble makes some infantile comment about cute n fluffy wildlife. Last night's Springwatch was a case in point - a pair of buzzards (don't they just eat worms?) had rounded up a bevy of rabbits, voles, moorhen chicks and, yes, an ickle fluffy duckling, for their young. Humble seemed close to tears; Packham just shrugged as if to say 'What do you expect?'

Now Packham has established himself as one of TV's leading conservation experts, he has the clout to say what he believes. And God bless 'im, that's exactly what he's gone and done.

I do hope I'm right, and this marks the start of a new era in conservation thinking, where we focus on the real issues, and doing something about them, rather than leaving it to organisations like the RSPB to exploit the subject for their own political and financial gain.

Share|

The RSPB, harriers and persecution

Oh how lovely! The RSPB are running Hen Harrier Safaris in Bowland. Go and watch the fabulous 'skydancers', explore the United Utilities Bowland estate with a local expert, who can reveal the fascinating wildlife and heritage that is hidden within this rugged and spectacular landscape.

While you're there, you might like to ask about the appalling story of persecution behind this little jaunt. Not persecution of the harriers (although goodness knows how they will react to being treated as a fundraising spectacle). No, I'm talking about the persecution of loyal raptor workers who for years have devoted a large chunk of their lives to protecting these special birds.For an insight into the nastiness that's gone on behind the scenes, see the Raptor Politics blog here.

The raptor workers' treatment at the hands of Natural England and the RSPB has been shoddy, to say the least. They've been pushed aside like a golden eagle in the way of a windfarm, in fact.

Share|

Avery's swansong is another 'irresponsible scaremongering' attack on shooting

The outgoing Conservation Director of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds stands accused of "irresponsible scaremongering" on the eve of the final stage hearing of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (WANE) Bill in the Scottish Parliament.

In a carefully timed and deviously worded press release, embargoed for 00:01am on Wednesday 2 March 2010, the RSPB calls for a "vicarious liability" clause to be built into the WANE Bill, making landowners responsible for any illegal killing of birds of prey on their land.

In the absence of hard evidence of illegal killing by gamekeepers, the release instead relies on inference and innuendo, suggesting that England's grouse moors could support 323 pairs of hen harriers. In a staggeringly unscientific leap of logic, they surmise that the 'missing' harriers must have been killed by gamekeepers.

Applying the same logic to lowland farms, suburban gardens or RSPB reserves could see farmers, householders and RSPB wardens accused of wholesale slaughter of tree sparrows, song thrushes and... hen harriers.

The RSPB release makes much of the discredited and flawed JNCC report. But it makes no mention of the serious work being undertaken to resolve the harrier grouse conflict - instead they disingenuously imply that the diversionary feeding study at Langholm is the only way forward.

At a time when raptor workers, conservationists, gamekeepers and shooters agree that working together provides the best hope for hen harriers, the monolithic RSPB political lobbying machine is increasingly out of step with progressive conservationists, and insists on pursuing its outdated war on landownership.

Insiders hope that this latest attack is the swansong of outgoing RSPB Conservation Director Mark Avery, due to retire in April. For years Avery has made overtures to shooting, suggesting he is keen to work with the industry, while using the RSPB's media department to condemn gamekeepers and shooting estates for all the hen harrier's problems in the UK.  "Avery has singlehandedly undermined progress on harriers for years," said one. "Perhaps once he's gone we can really begin to get somewhere."

The RSPB release also ignores the fact that more than 200 Scottish estates have condemned out of hand, any and all illegal poisoning of birds of prey (list here). Among other significant facts glossed over is that ALL the major shooting and landowning organisations have unequivocally condemned illegal killing - including the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (Scotland), the Scottish Countryside Alliance, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, the Scottish Estates Business Group and the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association.

Here is the text of the RSPB release:

media release

Embargo: no publication or broadcast before:

00:01am on Wednesday 2 March 2010

ILLEGAL PERSECUTION KILLING BRITAIN'S HEN HARRIER POPULATION

The newly released results of the 2010 hen harrier survey have revealed a 20 per cent decline in the bird's UK population in the last six years. The hen harrier, one of our most spectacular birds of prey, is also the species most affected by illegal persecution, a fact reinforced by a recent review - the hen harrier framework - which concluded that illegal killing is the biggest single factor affecting the species, and that it is having a dramatic impact on the population in core parts of the hen harrier's range in northern England and Scotland.

The latest results complement the findings of a 2008 survey which found that only five pairs of hen harriers nested successfully on high-intensity 'driven' grouse moors in Scotland and England, despite the fact that sufficient habitat exists for 500 pairs.

The 2010 hen harrier survey recorded an estimated 646 pairs of hen harrier nesting in the UK and the Isle of Man. This is down from an estimated 806 pairs in 2004.

Dr Mark Avery is the RSPB's Director of Conservation. He said: "The hen harrier is one of our most wonderful birds of prey, but it also the species most threatened by illegal persecution. Every year hen harriers are targeted on grouse moors across the UK and it is clear that this onslaught is having a significant impact on our population. We believe that gamekeepers are killing them illegally - under pressure from their land-owning masters.

"The 2010 hen harrier survey backs up the findings of the government-commissioned hen harrier framework, which reported that persecution was the principal factor limiting this bird of prey's UK population.

"Last year over 210,000 people signed up to our bird of prey campaign demanding an end to the illegal killing of birds of prey. With such a strong voice demanding change, it is deplorable that some within the grouse moor community continue to break the law and deny people the chance to see such a magnificent bird."

With almost 500 pairs, Scotland has the vast majority of the UK hen harrier population. But here the decline has been even greater, falling over 21 per cent from an estimated 633 pairs in 2004. The survey recorded little change in England as the population rose from 11 pairs in 2004 to 12 last year. Estimates suggest there is potential for at least 323 pairs of hen harrier in England, so a dozen pairs represents less than four per cent of the potential, with illegal persecution being blamed for this huge difference. The hen harrier remains on the verge of extinction as a breeding species in England.

In Scotland, the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill, which is currently being debated, provides a great opportunity to take new steps to try and help save hen harriers. One option being looked at is making landowners legally responsible for the actions of their gamekeepers.

Later this week, the meeting of the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime meeting will be addressed by Richard Benyon, Minister for the Natural Environment and Fisheries.

Dr Mark Avery added: "We trust that the minister will agree with us that these results show that it's time to take decisive action in the struggle to protect threatened birds of prey.

"Although more than 70 per cent of people convicted of bird of prey persecution in the last 20 years have been gamekeepers, in reality its often landowners who effectively force their employees to break the law. We believe that making landowners legally accountable for bird of prey crimes in Scotland and England is a vital step in the road to reducing persecution."

Wales, where there are no grouse moors and very little recorded persecution of harriers, recorded a substantial increase, rising from 43 pairs in 2004 to 57 last year.

Paul Irving, of the North England Raptor Forum, said: "As ever we are utterly appalled at the continuing tiny proportion of the potential harrier population found on moorland managed for grouse shooting. We believe this not only shows an utter contempt for this wonderful bird, but also it shows complete disregard for the law by game managers. That we have so far failed to change this reflects badly on us all.

Dr Sian Whitehead, Countryside Council for Wales's Senior Ornithologist said "I am encouraged by the ongoing recovery in the Welsh hen harrier population, but we must not become complacent. Declines in the breeding population during the 1980s and early 1990s could be attributed, in part, to persecution, and it is encouraging that the situation has now changed. We must continue to ensure that the Welsh hen harrier is adequately protected, and the habitat for them managed appropriately, so that this iconic species of the Welsh uplands can continue to thrive."

The 2010 hen harrier survey was funded by RSPB, Scottish Natural Heritage, Natural England and the Countryside Council for Wales. Additional support was provided by NIEA and many members of bird of prey study groups.

ends

Share|

RSPB grudgingly admits: predator control helps threatened birds

Fascinating, this latest RSPB press release (which at the time of writing hasn't made it onto their media website).

Instead of the headline-grabbing whizz-bang style which the RSPB's media department is capable of, it's almost like they're trying to bore you to sleep before you get to the nitty-gritty.

What the release actually says is that predator control works. Upland waders such as lapwing and curlew are affected by predation. And they do better on grouse moors, where predators such as crows and foxes are controlled.

---------------------------

UPDATE 17 Feb: The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust were quick to pick up on the point. They've issued the following press release:

Game scientists welcomes RSPB study showing influence of predators on wader declines. 

The Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) welcomes the recent RSPB study which explores the causes of population change in upland waders.

Professor Nick Sotherton, director of research with the GWCT said, “We welcome this RSPB study as it reinforces the message that predator control on grouse moors benefits declining species of birds, especially where crows are removed.  It would be very sad if we lost a significant fraction of our bird life through want of necessary wildlife management. The evidence from our research is that such losses are not inevitable and the North Pennines, which is almost entirely managed for grouse shooting and hosts high concentrations of waders, stands as a testament to the difference game management can make to conservation in the uplands.

“However, contrary to the views of the RSPB study, we also found that golden plover breed best on grouse moors and that survival rates are lower away from grouse moors. Indeed our study at Otterburn found that 75% of golden plovers produced young on keepered plots compared to just 18 per cent where predators were not removed.”

 This latest study adds to the weight of evidence that has already emerged from the results of the 9-year Upland Predation Research project carried  out by the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust at Otterburn in Northumberland. The Trust’s findings, which were published in the scientific publication, The Journal of Applied Ecology identified for the first time that the control of common predators such as crows and foxes  significantly improves, by more than three times, the breeding success of curlew, lapwing and golden plover – all species of conservation concern.  Professor Sotherton said, “It is gratifying that the RSPB’s latest work confirms the Trust’s findings and further proves that securing the future of these vulnerable birds is within our grasp.”

Share|

Harriers: the saga continues

Things may look quiet on the surface, but underwater I have been paddling furiously. Which is a roundabout way of saying that I have been in contact with a wide variety of people who have an interest in raptors in general, and hen harriers and grouse moors in particular.

Treading carefully too, I might add - the subject arouses strong feelings. If you were to place some of the people I've been talking to in the same room... well, sparks would fly, maybe fists too. What has struck me, though, is that everyone has come across as impassioned and genuine, whatever their take on the subject.

I am not going to comment on how widespread the problem may or may not be - that's where most discussions run in to a brick wall. But talking to people on all sides of this debate, I am now convinced that some keepers firmly believe that they wouldn't be doing their job properly if they allowed harriers to set up home on their patch.

Equally, there are many in shooting (of whom I'm one) who believe that killing birds of prey is totally unacceptable, whatever the circumstances. If it means a grouse moor is financially unviable, tough. For me, shooting was never about money anyway.

When these two types of shooter collide, things get unpleasant. Imagine a situation where a young keeper with a 'modern' outlook finds himself working under an 'old school' head keeper, and gradually becomes aware that killing raptors is considered part of the job.

He wrestles with his conscience, perhaps for months. His career, his family's wellbeing, maybe even his own safety, depend on him keeping schtum, betraying everything he believes in. Perhaps that goes on, and he just learns to live with hating himself. Many of us have been in jobs like that. Or perhaps, brave soul, he decides to turn whistleblower.

First problem, where to turn? His employer? No chance. The RSPB? You must be kidding. The shooting organisations? They say they're against illegal killing, but when the chips are down can they really provide the care and, yes, protection, that our whistleblower is going to need? The police? That's probably where he turns - and that's when his personal hell escalates to a whole new level.

If we're ever going to tackle this problem head-on, this is the guy we need to support 100%. At present, it would take a very brave man indeed to dob in a rogue keeper. The RSPB's 'Bad Apples' campaign was aimed at such people, but it offered them no incentive, no protection. We need to do more. Who does, and how? Well, I don't have the answer, but my instinct is to look towards the keepers' organisations, who at least have some experience of supporting keepers in difficult situations, and of all those groups are most likely to be trusted by our man on the horns of a dilemma.

Whilst talking to various people involved in this debate, it struck me how in many ways it's similar to issues like the impact of tuna fishing on dolphins. Is there scope for a 'Raptor Friendly' scheme for shoots, just as you might see a 'Dolphin Friendly' logo on your tin of supermarket tuna?

The idea certainly has a superficial appeal - it could get shooting estates and the raptor lobby talking positively, which must be a good thing. But who would draw up the criteria? And who would administer the scheme? Would shoots really go along with something run by the RSPB? Or would we need another body to run it, one that's not perceived as so anti-shooting -  even though that would weaken the value of the scheme?

Again, I don't know the answers - but I think the questions are worth asking, and I'd be very interested to hear views from all sides. Shout if you must, but I listen better when people talk nicely!

Share|

Antis chucking in the towel

Fancy that! In the last couple of days, I've learned that two of shooting's most vociferous adversaries are moving on.

Douglas Batchelor, chief exec of the League Against Cruel Sports, has announced he is retiring this summer.

And Mark Avery, conservation director of the RSPB, let slip in a recent blog post that he will leave the bird-botherers in April. Just in time to apply for Batchelor's job perhaps? No, I don't think Avery is bonkers enough for them.

So does this mean shooting will get an easy ride, free from polemical rants about how we're all bloodthirsty psychopaths with a penchant for throwing toxic substances around the environment and persecuting anything with a hooky-beak?

I'm guessing not.

Share|

Another cunning stunt from the RSPB

The RSPB have issued yet another anti-shooting press release - cunningly embargoed to shit on any positive coverage arising from tonight's Purdey Awards ceremony, which will showcase some of the finest examples of real, practical conservation work carried out on game shoots nationwide.

There is no valid reason for the embargo in this release - no event, no new information. It's purely a device to manipulate the timing of media coverage.

This is a coincidence too far (remember their equally well timed press releases for the CLA Game Fair, etc?).

There is no longer any doubt in my mind. The RSPB intend to destroy shooting. It's war.

UPDATE: I had an email from Grahame Madge, RSPB media officer, saying that the timing of the release was coincidental. My reply follows...

From: Madge, Grahame

Sent: 19 November 2010 11:21
To: Marchington, James
Subject: Hen harrier release

Hi James, your suggestion that the RSPB issued the hen harrier press release to spoil tonight’s award ceremony does not fairly represent the situation. This coincidence is purely accidental. The Society does not want to see an end to shooting or to condemn all parts of the industry. In fact, we are always keen to work with those actively involved in conservation. However, we recognise that a few bad apples are tarnishing the shooting industry’s reputation. In the past, I have gone to considerable effort to praise those keepers who, for example, work alongside the recently reintroduced red kite. I hope to find further examples of good practice in future.

However, we will also continue to publicise illegal acts committed by the industry. Regrettably, there is a steady stream of persecution incidents continually coming to light to keep me busy.

Have a nice evening

Regards Grahame

From: Marchington, James
Sent: 19 November 2010 11:56
To: Madge, Grahame
Subject: RE: Hen harrier release

Hi Grahame,

Thanks for your email - I appreciate you taking the trouble to respond.

It's a complex issue, and I appreciate that RSPB does, on occasion, cooperate with shooting estates. The overall impression, however, is one of a sustained campaign of attrition, with shooting attacked on a number of fronts (general licences, lead shot, the emotively labelled "persecution", etc). The 'bad apples' message is lost on the general public, who would quite understandably infer from yesterday's release that shooting generally is responsible for wholesale slaughter of harriers and other birds of prey, and that shooting per se is a major threat to conservation.

If the RSPB is genuine about not wanting to see an end to shooting, and wanting to work with shooting estates, then it has a huge credibility gap to overcome. Its current communication and lobbying policies are driving a massive wedge between itself and shooters who are actively engaged in conservation work. Take for example your own words "we will also continue to publicise illegal acts committed by the industry"; these acts are not committed by "the industry", they are committed by criminals who are roundly condemned by "the industry" (it isn't one), a point that seems lost on the RSPB.

I hope one day we might see you issuing a press release about how Mark Avery presented the Purdey Awards and praised the splendid conservation work done by xyz shooting estate, but I fear that day is a long way off and we are currently heading in the opposite direction.

Best wishes,

James

Share|

Keeper fined for using poison

Lewis Whitham, 20, a gamekeeper on the Hopetoun Estate in South Lanarkshire, has been fined £800 (reduced from £1,000) after pleading guilty at Lanark Sheriff Court to planting a poisoned rabbit carcass.

Good. Poison is not only abhorrent to me personally, the use of it by any gamekeeper, anywhere, is enormously damaging to shooting.

Let's hope that a proper convinction and fine will encourage a few dinosaurs in the keepering world to reconsider their use of methods that belong in a museum with the man-traps and spring-guns.

Share|

Sheep eat hen harriers

An amazing admission by RSPB Scotland is reported on the Raptor Politics blog. On Orkney, between 1973 and the 1990s, the number of breeding female hen harriers crashed from 100 to just 3. That's right, a 97% drop. And not a gamekeeper in sight.

The crash is attributed to grazing by sheep - numbers doubled during the 1980s in response to CAP subsidies. Now the CAP subsidies have been reformed, sheep numbers have fallen again, and harriers are recovering.

Of course the RSPB still manage to get in the obligatory broadside: "Illegal disturbance and killing continues to be the main barrier to this beautiful bird returning to many parts of the country where it should be commonplace."

Nothing to do with excessive numbers of deer, sheep, etc then. Or militant do-gooders stravaiging all over the place during the breeding season. It's all the fault of those ghastly posh people and their wicked gamekeepers (cue green smoke, audience hisses).

Share|

Is there a handbook of how to campaign to ban something you don't like?

Consider this quote:

Dr David Fabry, who led the research, said: "We really do not know exactly how much xxxxx you need to be exposed to in order to be at increased risk. But we do know that the threshold for damage is very low. Really, the safe level of exposure is no exposure."

Was he talking about lead shot in game? He could have been - we've heard almost those exact same words spouted against lead shot by the WWT, RSPB and other anti-shooting groups, even though by the best scientific estimates you'd have to eat game for breakfast, lunch and dinner 7 days a week for there to be any detectable effect.

No, in this case, Dr Fabry was attacking smoking, on grounds that the splendid Moose takes issue with. I wonder if these people have a handbook full of useful pseudo-scientific phrases that sound scary but actually mean nothing at all.

Share|

Lead ban isn't working

Shooters are ignoring the lead ban and shooting ducks with lead shot, according to a study funded by Defra and carried out by the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust.

Researchers found that 70% of ducks purchased from English game dealers, butchers and supermarkets had been shot illegally with lead. The study concluded that amongst those supplying game dealers and retail outlets, compliance with the law on lead shot is poor.

The WWT press release says that although their survey showed relatively good understanding of the spirit* of the law, up to 45% of respondents admitted to not always complying. "Survey responses included the belief that lead poisoning was not a sufficient problem to justify the regulations, and there were perceived issues** surrounding availability, cost and efficiency of the alternatives to lead, together with a lack of enforcement of the regulations."

[* Note 'spirit'. I'll bet that understanding of the practical details is much lower - hence the 45%, some of whom may be saying 'I've probably broken it because I don't really understand what it says'.

** Despite what's being claimed on other blogs, 'perceived issues' is not the same thing as someone saying 'I break the law cos I'm unlikely to get caught'. This is not the same 45% explaining 'why' they broke the law. And what's with "up to 45%". Was it 45 % or wasn't it? 2% falls within "up to 45%".]

The WWT calls on the government "to take urgent action to ensure that the risk of lead poisoning in waterbirds is substantially reduced by ensuring that lead gunshot is no longer used over wetlands or for shooting waterfowl and that the UK honours its international commitments."

Antis, from LACS to RSPB, will love it - I suspect the sirens are already sounding at BASC HQ. Oh look, Avery is jumping up and down with excitement already.

One interesting claim made in Avery's blog post: he says, "Defra has just withdrawn its secretarial support from the Lead Ammunition Group." (On checking I discover that this too is misleading - they simply can't spare anyone over the next couple of months, but there will be Defra staff available in time for the next scheduled meeting).

Oh how they're loving it... WWT themselves misleadingly tweeted:

It doesn't of course - it confirms that lead shot is still rather effective at bringing them down.

All in all, pretend outrage at poor compliance with a stupid and poorly communicated law which is misdirected at the species being shot rather than the type of land where the shot will fall. Further proof of the RSPB's anti-shooting agenda.

And no, that  doesn't mean I condone lawbreaking. Responsible shooters should always comply with the letter of the law, no matter how silly it is - but that needn't stop us campaigning to get it changed.

Biodiversity and terrorism

Delingpole puts it so well: Biodiversity, "a noble-seeming concept has been subverted by the watermelons of the green movement in exactly the same way as “Climate change” has and with precisely the same aims: to extend the powers of government; to raise taxes; to weaken the capitalist system; to curtail personal freedom; to redistribute income; to bring ever-closer the advent of an eco-fascist New World Order."

Precisely. Just as we hear shouts of "terrorism" and "paedophiles" each time there's a new attack on personal freedom, so "biodiversity" is invoked by those who really mean "we're taking over your land". Folks like the RSPB start by saying wildlife belongs to "the nation", and five minutes later are claiming it for themselves - they're the experts after all? - and demanding wider and wider powers from government to help them do it. Wake up people, there's a revolution going on!

Update: Taking the argument to its logical conclusion, the League Against Cruel Sports are now arguing that shooters are getting a "free lunch" out of the nation's wildlife, and should be stopped.

The price of being labelled non-native is... death

The RSPB can be very unsentimental at times. Next year it plans to spend £1.7million killing rats for being non-native and threatening biodiversity on a remote Pacific island. The rats, you see, were brought there by sailors (well their ancestors were) so they've no right to be there. And they are eating 25,000 seabird chicks "alive" annually (perhaps they could be forgiven if they euthanased their prey humanely first). The rats' nefarious behaviour (eating to stay alive) is threatening the Henderson petrel, found nowhere else in the world. So they must die. Every last one of them.

It's ok cos they're just rats, and it's a long way away. Just try the same argument with eagle owls in the uk and you get a very different response, as Mark Avery discovered recently. One rule for the cute 'n cuddly...

Meanwhile, back home, Scottish gamekeepers are getting a kicking in the Guardian today, after a "study" by bird of prey experts estimates that only 1% of the "naturally occurring number" of hen harriers are breeding successfully on the UK's grouse moors. It's all based on a figure plucked out of the air for how many harriers "should" be living on Britain's grouse moors. Strangely, no figure is given for the number of harriers, etc, etc, that "should" be living on the RSPB's reserves.

Oh, and entirely coincidentally, these revelations appear just as Scottish ministers are considering proposals for "licensing grouse moors" and making owners liable for "persecution" of birds of prey by gamekeepers. Cos that would help wouldn't it? I cannot believe the RSPB honestly think the measures they're suggesting will "save" a single bird of prey.

Still, that's not the point. All this spin and lobbying has little to do with harriers, and a lot to do with gaining power over more and more money and land. And of course they get the full support of a significant number of Scots who would like to see foreign landowners exterminated, like non-native rats.

Watch out, Avery's aiming at pheasants

It pays to keep an eye on the blog of RSPB conservation director Mark Avery. When he innocently muses about some aspect of shooting, it probably means "Oo, I've just thought of another way to attack shooters."

Back in July 2009 he blogged about his rising concern about lead residues in game meat. By October that year, he was stirring up seven shades of you-know-what by writing to Defra, with a particularly weaselly letter - resulting in the formation of the Lead Ammunition Group.

Now he's running a new one up the flagpole: pheasants as a 'non-native' species. "I wonder how much the increase in some predator numbers is fuelled by this meat bonanza?" he asks disingenuously, taking a swipe at "big-shoot days where huge numbers of pheasants are released" while he's at it. (Actually the GWCT already has the answers to most of his questions).

I find the whole native/non-native species argument a ridiculous nonsense anyway. Who's to say which species 'deserve' to be here in the UK, based on whose assessment of which politically-correct moment in history we had the 'perfect' balance of wildlife? And how can this possibly be relevant to a landscape shaped by man since history began? Far too often the definition of 'native' or 'non-native' seems designed to support one organisation's point of view - the latest row over eagle owls is a case in point.

But leaving all that aside, what really bothers me is what devious new attack on shooting Avery is cooking up.

A scientist told me, so it must be true

'Science' is pulled out with a flourish like a trump card by people telling me things I find hard to believe. Like killing badgers won't help beat TB. Or spiralling raptor numbers are no threat to anything. Or we're all doomed, the planet is going to burst into flames and it's all my fault because I eat meat.

But if the scientists say so, I suppose it must be true.

Except, it seems that the 'consensus' on Global Warming is no such thing. One of America's leading physicists has resigned, calling the whole thing a scam. He goes further. It is, he says: "the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist".

Someone should tell the RSPB. They've done very nicely thank you out of the climate change scam for years. If it's all about to come unravelled, they should start looking for another bandwagon.

RSPB: It's war

This apparently, is the RSPB's view of a hen harrier.
You can buy one on the RSPB website for £6.99.
It makes a daft squeaking noise.

 This what a hen harrier actually looks like, taken from the excellent
Tooth & Claw website. Rather like the one I - a shooter (gasp) - saw on Skye
recently and reported to the local raptor group, who were delighted to
hear of a harrier they didn't already know about.

I spent an interesting hour or so at the CLA Game Fair chatting with Mark Avery, conservation director of the RSPB, about a whole range of topics - not surprisingly the conversation centred on birds of prey, what part shooters and shooting played in what the RSPB persists in calling "persecution", and what might be done about it.

I thought we made some progress. I thought he listened, tried to understand, perhaps even believed some of what I said. At the very least, I thought he grasped the idea that shooters, by and large, were a force for good in the environment. He even suggested he might, one day, be willing to discuss licensed control of birds such as buzzards when their numbers become excessive and they become a threat to biodiversity and/or game interests.

Nah. I might as well have gone and sunk a pint on my own in the Gunmakers Arms. Arriving in journalists' inboxes today, embargoed for Thursday morning, is a blatant all-out attack on shooting, blaming shooting for every dead bird of prey and a load more they didn't find. It's entitled "20 YEARS OF SHAME AS WAR CONTINUES AGAINST BIRDS OF PREY". Expect it to dominate Thursday's environment headlines.

---

UPDATE: Here we go - the Telegraph's soppy
Louise Gray has regurgitated it as expected: 

---

"The RSPB is concerned the shooting industry appears unable to self-police and the Society believes new legislation is required to make the managers and employers of those committing these crimes legally accountable," thunders the release. "Options such as vicarious liability – that holds these people accountable for crimes committed by their staff - and removing the shooting rights for individuals and errant estates need to be considered. These measures would provide a significant deterrent without imposing a burden on legitimate shooting interests."

Actually Mark, they wouldn't. They'd be a complete flop. For the reasons I explained at the Game Fair, and a whole lot more besides.

But you don't care. Because the RSPB, once a respected conservation organisation, has become a loudmouthed, power-hungry, money-greedy political lobbying organisation that cares only about more members, more political clout, and more influence over more land.

Before the RSPB gets a penny more public money, or is allowed to influence the management of public land, I demand a fully independent review of their competence at running their own reserves. From what I hear those reserves could and should accommodate many more breeding pairs of hen harriers and other rare species. The only possible explanation for the shortfall is the organisation's lack of competence. Because they cannot own up to uncomfortable facts - like the appalling destruction to wildlife caused by pet cats, or the need to control numbers of predators such as buzzards and eagle owls to preserve biodiversity - for fear of losing members and bequests.

UPDATE: The National Gamekeepers Organisation makes some good points in its response to the RSPB's nonsense, saying: "it is important to debunk the myth that there is a war being waged on birds of prey by rural stakeholders such as gamekeepers. The facts show this is simply not so, and the public should be sceptical about the motives of those who hype the issue when a host of other, less photogenic birds are in serious decline”. Well worth a read.

Mad mad world

What's going on? The Royal Society for the Promotion of Raptors is accused of gross mismanagement of one of its reserves. The Royal Society for the Intimidation of Pensioners has a bloke arrested and led off in handcuffs for killing a pest. (Sorry but I just can't take seriously any animal organisation that depicts a badger like this:)

Now it appears Britain is over-run with giant rats - and it's all the EU's fault.

The bonkers Douglas Batchelor of the League Against Posh People is offering the government advice on firearms control.

In other news, spokesmen from BASC and Countryside Alliance had a friendly discussion about who is doing the best job of protecting the interests of the shooting community:



Yes, the silly season is truly upon us. So I'm off to the Isle of Skye where I will be shooting, fishing, hillwalking, sailing and generally having a good time - mostly beyond the reach of mobile phones, internet, email and all that. Updates will be few and far between.

Oh, and don't even think about robbing the house while I'm away. My daughter's rugby-playing boyfriend will rip your limbs off.

Do the RSPB's principles get in the way of doing a proper job?

'Gallowayfarm' who writes the excellent Working for Grouse blog has paid a visit to Geltsdale - and his comments make interesting reading.

"Birches and alders had been totally overgrown and killed by dense forests of ferns, and several young trees looked decidedly weak and ill, having been smothered by previous years of bracken growth," he writes.

"When compared to the hills around Teesdale, Geltsdale is utterly devoid of birds... It clearly is an excellent place to be a raptor, and it was hardly surprising to see that black grouse numbers were recently described as being less than a third of those found on neighbouring estates."

I'm sure there will be plenty of people telling me he's got it all wrong. But it's worth remembering, before we can judge the results of conservation work (or the lack of it) we need to decide what "success" will look like.

And whether you're a grouse keeper or the RSPB, it seems that predator control is a vital management tool.

Fighting back on lead shot

Who said this:

“There is simply no scientific evidence that the use of traditional ammunition is having an adverse impact on wildlife populations that would require restricting or banning the use of traditional ammunition beyond current limitations, such as the scientifically based restriction on waterfowl hunting.”

BASC? The Countryside Alliance? The RSPB?

No, it's the American firearms industry, fighting back at the latest attacks on lead shot and bullets. I particularly like this line:

“Hunters and their ammunition have done more for wildlife than the CBD ever will. And the CBD’s scientifically baseless petition and endless lawsuits against state and federal wildlife managers certainly do not serve the wildlife that the organization claims to protect.”

Will the worm turn in the UK too? Time will tell.