A moving tale

Here's a video I made recently for the Gamekeepers' Welfare Trust, to help them publicise their work supporting gamekeepers and their families in times of need.

So much of the video work I do focuses on activities and action, and there's little in the way of real human stories and emotion. This one is quite the opposite - it's a moving tale about a keeper who suffered a horrific accident, and his determination to continue with his active, outdoor lifestyle as best he can. And, of course, it's about the people who have helped and supported him in that. His family deserve more of a mention than they get in the video, but it also talks about what his employer and the GWT have been able to do to help.

It was a moving, and humbling, experience filming David and I wished I could have spent more time with him. I hope you enjoy the video - and if you can, support the GWT in their work. Click here to find out more.

Share|

Fox control with Geoff Garrod

Good heavens, it's more than two months since I posted here! Not because I've done nothing, but because I've been so busy!

Here's a piece I did for The Shooting Show, waiting with gamekeeper Geoff Garrod for some fox cubs he'd spotted and wanted to clear off the shoot before they did any real damage.

Next up I'll post a few other items that have appeared recently, on The Shooting Show and on Fieldsportschannel's AirHeads series.

Share|

An interview with gamekeeper Geoff Garrod

The latest episode of The Shooting Show features an interview I filmed with gamekeeper Geoff Garrod. He's a lovely chap, conscientious about his job but with a deep love of the wider countryside and wildlife generally - exactly what the antis find impossible to understand. But then people like that could never get their heads round the idea that a livestock farmer loves his animals then sends them to slaughter.

Filming was a challenge; it was a very bright day, and windy too, and I was desperately short of time. I wished I could spend a whole day just filming him going about his work - or even a year, chronicling the life of a keeper. Still, in the real world who's going to pay for that?

As always, back in front of the computer I kept wishing I'd done things differently; it's always a learning experience. Overall, though, I think the real Geoff comes through reasonably well, and by the tone of the comments it seems viewers like this slightly different style. I'll be trying to improve and refine it in future work.

Share|

BASC welcomes "sensible and functional" WANE Bill

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), has commended the Scottish Parliament for passing sensible and functional legislation aimed at protecting Scotland’s wildlife.

Under the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill outdated game licences have been abolished, archaic poaching laws have been reformed and the practice of catching up game birds for breeding stock has been legally recognised.

Vicarious liability, which will make the perpetrators of persistent raptor persecution accountable for the actions of their employees, is a measured and targeted approach to addressing wildlife crime.

Snaring remains a legal practice in spite of an attempt to ban it. However further regulations have been brought in to ensure best practice. These include the use of tags and record keeping, as well as training and accreditation.

Several amendments which would have restricted shooting by introducing the power to remove shooting rights have been defeated. A proposal to transfer some police powers to other agencies, such as the Scottish SPCA, was withdrawn.

BASC Scotland’s Nicolle Upton said: “BASC Scotland has been working tirelessly to ensure that this legislation would benefit shooting and gamekeeping. Unreasonable proposals to restrict deer stalking were dealt with at the consultation stage and the Bill as introduced was welcomed by shooters. The Bill has been a useful vehicle which has given MSPs the opportunity to see land management activities such as snaring in practice and to be briefed in depth on how the countryside actually works. As a result we have achieved something both sensible and workable."

Share|

Gamekeeper thrilled to see harriers on his moor

I was pleased to see this comment from a keeper on the excellent 'Working for Grouse' blog: "To suggest that harrier persecution is part and parcel of upland keepering is misleading, and only the most foolish would consider harming birds of prey to boost grouse numbers."

It's an interesting post, which supports my own view that the scale of the problem is often exaggerated for political and fundraising purposes.

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|

JNCC harrier report 'out of date and misleading'

Shooting, keepering and landowning organisations in Scotland have issued a strongly worded attack on the JNCC's February 2011 report 'A conservation framework for Hen Harriers in the UK'. The text of the press release follows:

MISLEADING REPORT ON HEN HARRIERS SHOULD BE DISMISSED

Five organisations at the forefront of conservation of the Scottish countryside have branded a new report* on Hen Harriers as out of date and misleading. The British Association for Conservation and Shooting (Scotland), the Scottish Countryside Alliance, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, the Scottish Estates Business Group and the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association have written to the Minister for Environment setting out their concerns about the report, due to be published this week.

The report, coordinated by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), looks into the conservation status of Hen Harriers, but only up to 2004. It concludes that persecution was the main factor limiting the growth of the Harrier population, but serious scientific flaws have been identified which undermine its conclusion and the five organisations recommended that it should not be published until those flaws had been corrected. Regrettably, although SNH has recognised discrepancies in the report they have not been corrected.

SNH has also acknowledged that the report will need to be revised almost as soon as it is published to address these flaws and limitations and to bring in new data.

Contrary to the impression given in this outdated report of a Hen Harrier population still being constrained by persecution, there has only been one confirmed incident of Hen Harrier persecution between 2004 and 2009** indicating that efforts to tackle that problem are now being effective. In parts of the country where Hen Harriers are not doing so well, there is evidence for a range of other reasons, such as predation by foxes and limitations on food supply, that have not been properly considered in the report. In other areas there is no likelihood of human persecution yet Harriers are still not thriving.

A spokesman for the five organisations said: "Publication of this report has been pushed through to allow its consideration under the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill. It is essential that MSPs deal only with scientifically proven facts.

"Our organisations are all committed to tackling any issues of wildlife crime robustly, and for the Government and SNH to now promote the use of misleading science can only undermine the goodwill that has been generated by joint projects in recent years. However, we do welcome the firm recommendation from SNH that a proper dispute resolution process is set up in Scotland to address this difficult issue. We do regret that organisations we work in partnership with in the sector were unwilling to let SNH reflect our concerns publicly."

* A conservation framework for Hen Harriers in the UK (JNCC February 2011)
**The illegal killing of birds of prey in Scotland in 2009 (RSPB)

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

UPDATE 17 Feb: SNH press and PR manager Calum Macfarlane contacted me with a 'balancing' comment from SNH:

Professor Des Thompson, SNH principal adviser on biodiversity, said: "The hen harrier framework report is based on sound, recognised scientific principles and the most up-to-date data available. The report is based on information from the RSPB wildlife crime investigations database, in which incidents are recorded as either 'confirmed' or 'probable' persecution.

"There will be more detailed data available within the next two years, particularly from a hen harrier survey carried out in 2010 which is currently being collated. This will add detail to the picture, but it's clear from the reliable and recognised statistics available now that persecution of hen harriers is a serious problem."

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

UPDATE 17 Feb: ...and now the GWCT Scotland tries to put the issue in perspective, with a release that calls for 'conflict resolution', together with an acknowledgement that other factors besides 'persecution' (eagles, food, predation) might just be having an effect on harriers:

Scotland’s harriers in good conservation status
but more work needed to resolve conflicts

GAME & Wildlife Conservation Trust’s (GWCT) review of the newly released Hen Harrier Framework has highlighted that, while Scotland’s harriers were nationally in favourable conservation status in 2004, distribution in some areas is poor.

The Trust also identifies that the scientific approach taken in this species framework needs further revision and the conservation approach for this species should be one of conflict resolution.

GWCT welcomed SNH’s recent offer to review the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) Hen Harrier Conservation Framework and although the review secured helpful revisions to the framework, GWCT’s scientists remain concerned about a number of themes.

The Trust feels that the broader moorland conservation requirements have not been balanced with raptor conservation, as is required in European law. We welcome SNH’s proposal of a prompt review of the framework and want to work with all the organisations involved to achieve a better distributed and resilient hen harrier population in the UK alongside grouse moor management, a valuable economic and conservation land use.

Areas of concern:

1.       We are pleased to see that on the basis of the criteria selected by SNH and the report’s authors, Scotland’s hen harrier population was nationally in favourable conservation status in 2004. However two of the three criteria used to assess conservation status, at the level of individual Natural Heritage Zones, are flawed. The result is that no matter how high or low the harrier population size surveyed in 2004, application of the criteria would always have found that half the sites failed and half passed each test. This not a robust approach to assessing long term conservation status. It also remains a matter of concern that the framework has been published in the year following a national survey of harriers but without using these data.

2.       The study reveals harriers are not evenly distributed across Scottish regions in relation to suitable habitat. Persecution is the focus for possible explanations of this distribution. Although we acknowledge the effects of persecution in some regions, more could have been done to explain the relative contributions of the many other factors affecting harriers, in particular golden eagle-harrier interactions, food supply and predation by foxes on nesting harriers.

3.       The accuracy of the population estimates could have been improved by not assuming a standard occupancy rate in suitable habitat and using a finer scale habitat map; an earlier report revealed that the extent of land suitable for harriers in Scotland (at the fine scale) may be 26% (rather than 42-50% in the model). At that scale the potential population size may be 931 harriers, well below the published 1467-1790.

4.       The report acknowledges that the complex interactions affecting harriers are already being explored by the UK’s hen harrier grouse management conflict resolution processes. The GWCT feels that this framework should have drawn more on these. Central to sustainable harrier conservation is the balance between maintaining heather moors, healthy food supplies and low fox predation pressure for harriers while allowing red grouse shooting to thrive and deliver these harrier requirements. These issues are recognised in the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project and Environment Council attempts to resolve the real conflict between hen harrier conservation and red grouse management.

END

Share|

Harriers: the case for management

I've had a fascinating conversation with Dr Adam Smith, director of the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust Scotland.

As you might expect, he sees the harrier/grouse conflict from the shooting landowners' perspective. But he also brings a scientist's objectivity to the problem, and he's not afraid to confront the issues. And, of course, he has a unique insight into the estate owners' position - after all, he has spent years advising them on how to manage their grouse moors to make them more productive, not just in terms of grouse bags, but in a wider sense too.

I've embedded below a recording of the phone interview, but here are the main points I took from our conversation:

• GWCT believes in managed wildlife solutions. In Britain, says Smith, we have fundamentally altered all our landscapes already. It's naive to suggest there's any alternative to management - whether it's corvids and songbirds, or harriers and grouse. We cannot step back and let nature look after itself.
• The Joint Raptor Study which ran at Langholm in the 90’s demonstrated what can go wrong; a balance needs to be struck.
• 'Management' doesn't mean killing harriers. There are more subtle ways of managing the harrier population. Smith has done work with Steve Redpath and others on 'non-lethal' methods. These include 'soft interventions' such as i) Diversionary feeding (but the effect is unproven, and it's impractical in many cases), and ii) Removing harrier chicks when they hatch, raising them in captivity, then releasing them where or when they no longer threaten the grouse. The latter would require a licence.
• It is perfectly possible to have a thriving grouse moor and a population of harriers - "That's an entirely sustainable position" says Smith.
• The big risk for grouse moors is when grouse numbers fall to low levels (which can happen due to disease etc) - that's when harriers (and other predators) can prevent numbers ever building up again. This is called the 'predator trap'.
• Grouse moor owners need to be offered a legal way out of the predator trap.
• RSPB and others have resisted going along with any suggestions of legalised harrier control/management because it looks like giving in to blackmail - along the lines of "Let us control harriers or we'll carry on doing it illegally."

I am slowly coming round to the view that this perceived "blackmail" is the single biggest stumbling block to cooperation and progress on this issue.

As I've mentioned in private emails to one or two correspondents, I don't believe it's realistic to think that we will be granted licences to kill birds of prey - even though there's a good logical argument that, in certain circumstances, we should be (and yes, I'm aware that we can point to examples where even the RSPB has applied lethal control methods - although not, so far as I'm aware, against raptors which are widely regarded, somewhat illogically, as a special case).

Not only that, I think it harms shooting's position for us to campaign and lobby for a licensing system to kill birds of prey. If we could drop any ambitions for lethal control, I'm sure we'd have support from RSPB and others to develop effective methods of non-lethal control.

That last point was too much for one shooter, who told me in no uncertain terms: "Instead of censoring the shooting community and advocating appeasement why not support it against the conservation Taliban or are you actually one of them?"

As I'm learning, this debate has its fanatics on both sides! Anyhow, here's that interview with Adam Smith:

Share|

'Please don't publish this but...'

I'm getting a number of supportive emails from shooters about my stance on harriers and raptor persecution generally. Interestingly, they all say "this is not for publication but..."

There are clearly a lot of shooters who, like me, find raptor persecution totally unacceptable - but are nervous of standing up and being counted. I can understand that. There's a sense you might be perceived as letting the side down, by appearing to side with the antis.

I think that's a mistake. I think shooters should proudly stand up and say that they're against raptor persecution, that they won't tolerate it on any shoot they're involved in, and that they'll do everything they can to bring criminals to justice.

Like me, they'll be suprised to discover just how much support they've got.

Here's a (redacted) example of the sort of messages I've been getting:

Hi James,

I've just read your item concerning hen harriers and shooting on your blog and would just like to say that I agree with everything you say. I've been interested in all aspects of shooting since my early teens (I've forgotten how long ago that is), but also have a keen interest in birds of prey...

...it's good to see this issue being addressed in a national shooting publication.  I'm with you - raptor persecution is unacceptable and I feel that if it is not addressed by the shooting community, it will be the issue that is used by those opposing shooting to bring us down.

Kind regards,

Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxx

P.S. - I'd prefer you not to publish this e-mail

Share|

Harriers & grouse update

My post on harriers and grouse moors has already borne fruit, in that Tom Cameron kindly suggested I contact Steve Redpath at the University of Aberdeen's Centre for Environmental Sustainability. Steve has done plenty of work on the harrier/grouse conflict, and tells me he is determined to help find a solution.

"We are only going to move on if there is broad agreement about illegal killing and impact," he says. "There are various possible solutions to the problem, but we are only going to get there through dialogue and especially dialogue between the moderates on both sides, whilst isolating the extreme views." For the record, he states that "there is pretty compelling evidence from a variety of sources that illegal killing is going on and limiting harrier numbers on managed grouse moors".

Steve also warned me against writing off the raptor lobby as extremists, pointing out that they are as diverse as the shooting lobby, with a wide spread of views. And he pointed me in the direction of some of his published work on this subject - for instance the positive and forward-looking Hen harriers and red grouse: moving towards consensus? published in the Journal of Applied Ecology in 2009. He also pointed me to the Environment Council's Hen Harrier Dialogue.

Steve has given me plenty to think about, and plenty of homework to do - but I find it immensely encouraging that this sort of work is already going on towards a solution.

Over the next few days I hope to talk to several people at the sharp end, as it were, and discover what the conflict looks like from their perspective. Watch this space...

Share|

Hen harriers - fear, loathing, and few facts

Hen harriers are in the news again. This may or may not have something to do with the fact that the WANE (Wildlife And Natural Environment) Bill is currently going through the Scottish Parliament, and various groups have identified it as their best chance of attacking sporting estates in general, and shooting in particular.

They're jumping at the opportunity to have the law rewritten in their favour - perhaps winning the 'vicarious liability' that they claim would solve everything (it wouldn't, but that's another story)

The more strident anti shooting/pro raptor voices are growing shriller, and we are seeing the carefully managed 'release' of 'suppressed' information which, it's claimed, provides scientific proof, no less, of widespread 'persecution' by gamekeepers threatening the very existence of an iconic bird of prey.

'Silence over hen harrier carnage' shrieks the Raptor Persecution Scotland blog, for instance. They point to 'damning evidence' presented in the leaked Hen Harrier Conservation Framework [word doc] which they claim demonstrates 'the indisputable link between hen harrier persecution and heather moorland that’s managed for red grouse shooting'.

Actually, it isn't, and it doesn't. The report brings no new evidence to light. Much of it is a round-up of previously published work - and if you look back at that previously published work, it's clear that evidence is actually very thin on the ground.

What the report mostly does, is sucks a finger, sticks it in the air, and says: 'Hmm, I bet there should be 2500 pairs of harriers round here, and actually we can only see 749. I blame the bastard gamekeepers.' That's not science, no matter how you dress it up - and dress it up the authors have, in a report that runs to 69 pages which have cost the taxpayer... well, perhaps someone would like to tell me?

In fact, the more I look at the published reports, papers, reviews and what-have-you, it becomes clear that they tend to emanate from a small group of indivduals with a vested interest in talking up the problem, some of whom have seemingly made a career out of taking public money to write yet more reports regurgitating their own and their mates' work.

Be that as it may, it doesn't prove anything one way or the other. No doubt people make a living out of mangling science in areas like education, policing and fire safety; it doesn't mean a problem doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to have a calm, rational converation about harriers. I am fascinated by harriers. I love to see them on the Isle of Skye, where I've been walking up grouse since - well, since I could walk actually, although I wasn't allowed to carry a gun until I was 12. Plenty of things have decimated the grouse there over the years; harriers aren't one of them, though I'm sure they take the odd chick.

When I'm out with my gun and I spot a harrier, I stand and stare, open mouthed, in awe. The idea of harming it couldn't be further from my mind. Perhaps if I ran a commercial driven grouse shoot my feelings would be different.

So, are grouse shooting estates slaughtering harriers wholesale? No matter how loud the bird-botherers shout, fact is the evidence is flimsy to say the least. My gut feeling is that some (highly commercial) shoots believe they can't afford to tolerate harriers, and either encourage them to move on, or kill them. But I have no proof one way or the other - something that the anti-shooting lobby find hard to believe.

I had a long chat with the RSPB's Mark Avery at last year's CLA Game Fair. It soon became clear that he believed there was a conspiracy of silence over 'persecution'. I got the impression (no doubt he'll correct me if I'm wrong) that he imagined that I, as the editor of a shooting magazine, must know all about some organised campaign of persecution, but was simply refusing to admit it. I'm not at all sure I convinced him otherwise.

Well, I don't know. I don't know a lot of things. For instance, I don't know if keepers kill one, none, or a thousand harriers a year. I don't know whether habitat is a factor explaining the anomalies in harrier distribution on grouse moors vs moorland that isn't managed for grouse. To my simple mind, it seems obvious that heather burned in strips will provide cover for small prey species, which could make it harder for a harrier to make a living. But try asking that of the self-appointed 'experts' - you won't finish the sentence before they drown you out with shouts of 'persecution'.

If big grouse shoots are killing harriers, I want to know about it. And I want to see it stopped. Not because of some Marxist-inspired agenda to take over the countryside in the name of 'the people'. But because it's going to destroy the way of life that I know and love.

Perhaps my contacts and connections within the world of shooting will help me to find out what others have failed to discover. We shall see. I intend to go looking, and I'll report what I find - for good or bad.

Share|

Into the lions' den

I've been drawing fire over at the Raptor Politics blog (scroll down to the comments section) - a habitat frequented by what might be described as the Provisional Wing of the RSPB.

Mention the word "gamekeeper" and these people start frothing at the mouth. In their minds, keepers are responsible for anything that goes wrong with any bird of prey anywhere. Even the ones eaten by eagle owls on the RSPB's own CCTV!

Now, we all know there are some unreconstructed old buggers who do still think anything with a hooked beak is "vermin". I've met one or two. Literally one or two, in 30 years of working in shooting journalism. And yes, some grouse moor owners are greedy wossnames who care only about how many millions their moor will fetch when it's sold - and they're not a great example of shooting's contribution to conservation.

But this lot, encouraged by years of campaigning by the likes of the RSPB, think every keeper, every shooting estate, is slaughtering birds of prey on an industrial scale. And they're blind to the huge environmental benefits of shooting across the UK.

I was encouraged by the comments of one Mike Groves, who says he is working with "several law abiding estates in the East of Scotland monitoring Merlin, Short-eared Owl and a wealth of other raptors. I am welcomed onto these estates and keepers are keen to pass on raptor sightings." All good stuff; it's interesting that it took some time before he felt able to stick his head above the parapet on a birding blog, such is the resistance to anything positive about keepers among these people.

Most of all, though, the whole experience left me thinking, surely we should have created a better overall impression than this? And are we (via our organisations or individually) doing enough even now to turn the tide?

Dirty tricks in the war on gamekeepers

A gamekeeper implicated in the poisoning of a red kite has contacted the press to protest his innocence.

The un-named keeper on the Edradynate Estate in Tayside told the Courier: "As a member of the Scottish Gamekeepers' Association, I am against anything illegal. Anybody who does this should be jailed because it's not on and I have never done anything like this in my life. To find a poisoned bird on my ground is just wrong because I don't use poison and wouldn't know how to. There is something funny about this and I think someone else has killed this bird and planted it on my estate."

He adds that he has never seen a red kite, living or dead, in the Strathtay valley - and that the laird is desperately upset because it besmirches the estate's reputation.

Naturally enough, the Gamekeeper Persecution Group is highly cynical. But calling the papers for a lengthy discussion doesn't sound like the actions of a guilty man to me. With a long history of nastiness surrounding the whole business of bird of prey "persecution", I suspect there's more to this than meets the eye. Fortunately it falls within the jurisdiction of Alan Stewart, a man who has a deep understanding of the issues, and commonsense in abundance.

UPDATE: I've now spoken to several people living within a few miles of this spot - without exception they tell me there are NO red kites in the area. I smell a (poisoned) rat.

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.

One less fox in the wood

This is one of the cubs raised in the wood next to the release pen. With the birds arriving in about a week, their time is up.

This one wandered out as the light faded tonight, and made an easy shot for the .17HMR. I was using the slightly heavier CCI Gamepoint 20grain ammo, designed to mushroom rather than fragment.

I don't think it would have made any difference on this shot, but I'm finding it a good, solid hitting round.

So, one down, not sure how many to go, but I've seen the vixen, a very dark coloured animal. She'll be harder to get.

Does anything harm birds any more?

First it was squirrels, windfarms, then cats(!), now ravens. The RSPB seems to be on a mission to prove that all the usual suspects have no impact on birds whatsoever.

It can only be a matter of time before we see the society issuing a press release headed: "New research shows gamekeepers no threat to birds".

Meanwhile the GWCT have proper scientific research (c.f. guesstimates and waffle) to prove that sparrowhawks kill up to 40% of grey partridges (a threatened BAP species) overwinter. Expect an RSPB denial imminently.

Monoculture grouse

Researching the sea eagle story below, I am increasingly coming up against stories and rumours that give cause for concern.

There are tales circulating of estates that will put up a massive deer fence, then set about eliminating every deer on the place. Hares too. It's all about defeating the ticks that hold down grouse numbers.

A recent story in Sporting Rifle magazine quoted Colin Shedden of BASC Scotland: "There is certainly concern about the move towards monoculture of grouse on areas that were traditional grouse and deer estates... A number of keepers and stalkers and others have already expressed their concern..."

Speaking anonymously to the same magazine, an Angus stalker said: "Economic considerations are of course vital to the successful running of all estates but for one or more species to suffer possible local extermination to benefit another raises serious concerns."

Tayside police wildlife officer Alan Stewart talked of visiting an estate where the deer had been fenced out with an electric fence; the hill was "silent, almost dead, a monoculture of grouse with hardly another vestige of wildlife to be seen". He says some estates are heading in the monoculture direction and finds it "a very worrying prospect indeed."

Damn right it is. That would effectively be intensively farming grouse on the open hill. It might be hugely profitable, but it goes against everything that real shooters stand for. And it would do terrible damage to the public perception of shooting.

Perhaps more worrying still are the rumours of threats and intimidation against keepers who don't toe the line.

I hope they're just that - rumours. But having those sort of rumours going round does shooting's image no favours. I'd welcome any suggestions about how they can be proved or scotched once and for all.

Sea eagles in the news again

The row over sea eagle poisonings gets fishier and fishier. What's really going on at Glenogil?

Just a week ago, The Scotsman carried this story announcing the news that a radio-tagged sea eagle known as 'Bird 89' had been found poisoned with carbofuran on the Glenogil Estate in Angus - except that the bird had actually been found on 6 August (and even then was described as 'decomposed').

The RSPB jumped at the opportunity to denigrate shooting in general, with Duncan Orr Ewing stating in this press release: "once again it has been found in an area where sporting estates dominate the landscape". [It's been suggested this is unfair, and the statement doesn't implicate shooting in general. I disagree. That sort of statement leaves a clear impression in the public mind that shooting estates generally kill birds of prey. Replace 'sporting estates' with 'sheep farms' or 'golf courses' and the implication would be clear.]

This story appeared on the outdoor website grough appealing to hill walkers for information.

Meanwhile, on shooting forums dark conspiracy theories are being bandied about. Could it be a disgruntled former employee looking to get the estate into trouble? A poacher getting his own back? Farmers? Shepherds? Perhaps even anti-shooting activists looking to blacken the name of shooting? Or simply a case of raptocidal keepers thinking that, way up a glen with only one access road, they can keep getting away with it?

And why did it take more than six months for the eagle's death to be made public? Especially when the finding was perfectly timed to coincide with the start of the grouse shooting season on 12 August, which would have guaranteed huge media coverage. Once again, conspiracy theorists are suggesting funny-handshake connections between estate owners and senior police.

In the latest development, both the RSPB and the estate owner, multi-millionaire businessman John Dodd, have complained publicly about the way the investigation is being handled.

On 23 Jan, Dodd was reported here complaining that he is being 'unfairly targeted' and hinting it might all be a publicity stunt by the bird protection lobby.

Then three days later the RSPB 'launches a stinging attack' on Tayside Police, saying they had failed to investigate the alleged crimes properly. Reading between the lines, it sounds like there's a serious rift between RSPB and the police here - there's a hint of 'stop telling us how to do our job' in the police response.

Both Dodd and the RSPB sound positively outraged. Can they both be right? Or is one of them playing a blinding game of bluff?

I'd be amazed if the full truth ever emerges - but I'm willing to bet it's stranger than fiction.

UPDATE 27/1:

Chatting to people loosely connected with the estate, I'm getting a picture of a showpiece estate that's tightly run, with keepers and staff looked after well and provided with everything they need to do their jobs.
Among the local shooting community, the stories go that the keepers on Glenogil are mostly from northern England, and are all issued with smart new clothing, Benelli shotguns, etc. It seems they don't mix with the locals, and are rarely seen outside the estate.
Dodd himself has a reputation of standing no nonsense (which I suppose goes with the territory of running a successful business at that sort of level). He's also reputed to have little time for wildlife investigators. Legend has it that the local wildlife crime officer came round for a friendly chat and a cup of tea, to be met by a small army of lawyers.
Encouragingly, everyone I've spoken to, without hesitation, has said that a) they don't believe the estate is killing raptors, b) if it was, they wouldn't hesitate to report it.

UPDATE 28/1:

I have spent several hours today talking to, as they say, 'sources close to' some of the major players in this. Although I can't name sources, I can say that the picture is becoming clearer.

On the one hand, those involved in fighting wildlife crime are 100% convinced that there's illegal killing of birds of prey going on. They know where, and by implication they're sure they know who's doing it. Putting together a case that would stand up in court is a different matter. Without that, it would be a brave man who took on Dodd and his lawyers. This could explain the Tayside Police's apparent inaction, which in turn has got the RSPB jumping up and down.

Glenogil has, by all accounts, had a phenomenal grouse season in 2009. We're talking thousands of brace, and at getting on for £150 a brace that's serious money. That success is not down to any single activity, but the result of thorough attention to every detail of grouse moor management.

If you look up Glenogil on Google Maps, and look at the hills in 'satellite view', you'll see acre upon acre of an exemplary patchwork of burnt strips providing excellent grouse habitat (zoom in and you can even see the rows of grouse butts).

Probably the single most important factor at Glenogil has been controlling the ticks that attack grouse directly, and also infect them with louping ill. This has been achieved following techniques devised by the GWCT, an organisation that Dodd has strong links to. These techniques include using sheep as 'wool mops' to mop up ticks, which are then killed by sheep dip. Deer and mountain hare control also play a part.

Also involved in the grouse management at Glenogil is Mark Osborne, who has been linked with a number of estates suspected of wildlife crimes in the past. This has meant, rightly or wrongly, he's

become something of a target for those fighting wildlife crime; his involvement is bound to draw attention to the estate.

Interestingly, I'm also hearing mutterings about grouse being bred and released, something that received wisdom says can't be done. If someone has cracked the problems of how to do it, now that would be a story!

UPDATE 14/2:

I came across the following comment on the Raptor Politics blog (home of the provisional wing of the birdwatching fraternity). Interesting point, don't know if it's true or not:

D. McLeod: This sea eagle did not die in August 2009. It died in March 2009, but the RSPB people could not locate the dead bird until they brought in an expert tracker in August 2009.

Shooting ourselves in the foot

Two phone calls this afternoon have highlighted the fact that some shooters don't do themselves - or the rest of us - any favours.

The first was from a council employee in Leeds, who had shot from a nearby pheasant shoot rain down around him as he worked. He was the most reasonable bloke imaginable, but understandably concerned and wanted to know the legal position. I suggested the best bet was a quiet word with the shoot captain, but apparently local residents have complained before and got nowhere.

The second was from an RSPB worker in Northern Ireland. A while back I emailed him asking about the latest report of a poisoned red kite. Was he sure shooters were involved, I asked. After all, there are other people who might have cause to put down poison. But no, it seems he generally finds shooters and gamekeepers very helpful - but in this case the keeper is an oldfashioned sort who sees buzzards and kites as his enemies.

It only takes a few people like this to undo years of good work by the rest of us. The frustrating thing is, it's not our job to police them, we don't have the powers to do so - and yet we're the ones whose names get dragged through the dirt.

Can we work with birders?

In case you've missed it, I've been having an interesting exchange with a keen birder, Alan Tilmouth, via his blog Dusted Off Bins and in the comments section to some of the posts on this one.

Basically, Alan believes that the 'shooting community' (if only we were that organised and cohesive!) is systematically persecuting hen harriers and other birds of prey, and that something should be done to stop us.

I have stated my position as clearly as I can, as follows:

Let me state my position clearly. I know that illegal killing of raptors does happen. Although I've never witnessed it with my own eyes, I accept that people connected with shooting are sometimes responsible. I have never seen reliable statistics on the true extent of the problem, and can only speculate on how widespread it is. I am 100% against any illegal killing of raptors. Any gamekeeper or shooter who illegally kills a raptor is not worthy of the name, and I despise him. If I personally came across a case of this happening, I would not hesitate to report it to the authorities, and I would urge any gamekeeper or shooter to do the same. It is not only despicable it drags the reputation of shooting through the dirt.

No doubt there's the odd unreconstructed old keeper who would like to see me keelhauled for that. Well, that's his opinion, and he can cancel his subscription to Sporting Shooter - I don't want him as a reader.

I thought it would be interesting to ask Alan what, in an ideal world, he (and presumably other birders) would like the 'shooting establishment' to do. I suspected there would be many points of agreement, and areas where we could find compromises acceptable to both sides.

Alan posted his 'wish list' on his blog. And to his credit, his answer wasn't 'ban shooting'. In fact several of his points are not far from what happens already, although perhaps shooting doesn't do the best possible job of  publicising its efforts in these areas.

My natural reaction is to resist yet more certification, inspection and red tape - there's enough of that in land management and farming already. I don't suppose the birders would be happy if we demanded the right to inspect their homes on a regular basis just in case they were collecting birds' eggs. But shooting estates can and do work with local raptor groups etc, and it would be great to see this develop.

Below is Alan's list of requests. "Not much to ask" he says. Actually it is rather a lot to ask, but I reckon it's a workable starting point. What do you, the reader, think? If we could get a cast iron guarantee that the RSPB would put its full support behind shooting, provided we complied with Alan's list, could we live with that? Do email me or add a comment below to let me know.

1. The 'Shooting & Game' media should be consistently delivering the message that Illegal Persecution has no place in your sport. It should be a seen as a cancer that undermines the responsible and all particpants should be encouraged to root it out. If the number of column inches devoted to this message were equal to those criticising the conservation organisations such as RSPB and Natural England then people outside shooting may begin to believe their is a willingness to resolve the problem.

2. How about an industry accreditation/stewardship scheme that had Biodiversity Management Plans at it's core and was independantly scrutinised. The rewards for achieving different levels of accreditation could be directly linked to stewardship payments providing financial reward to those managing true biodiversity and achieving the highest standards. A combination of planned annual and random visits would verify the scheme. This could be used as a selling point in the same way as star ratings work for hotels and British Standards and ISO in other industries.

3. Committment ahead of the end of the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project to its findings & if diversionary feeding is demonstrated to work (again)it should be universally adopted (and incorporated into 2). The Brood Management Scheme proposed by Prof Steve Redpath should also be given due credence and tested as to viability.

4. Better promotion of the CAIP (Campaign Against Illegal Poisoning) with free advertising space in shooting magazines. Regular poison 'amnestys' on banned substances such as Carbofuran to take stocks out of circulation and put them beyond use.

5. I'd like to see a rural schools education programme to counter the underlying culture that dictates all birds of prey are bad, one that teaches the principals of predator/prey relationships to help the next generation of farmers, landowners, gamekeepers & shooters avoid the misconceptions that are so prevalent today. Perhaps an urban scheme to enlighten townies on countryside management might also be appropriate.

6. A requirement by law to notify the relevant authorities of the discovery of an active Hen Harrier nest placed upon all individuals.

7. Removal of the pressure being placed upon the Scottish government to issue licences to control Sparrowhawks & Common Buzzard by the Scottish Gamekeeper's Association and other shooting interests in Scotland.