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.
“Deranged” – PETA • “Super-posh” – The Mirror • "His own worst enemy" – D Barnes Esq • "Barbaric" – Liverpool City Council
Showing posts with label hen harriers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hen harriers. Show all posts
Wednesday, 30 March 2011
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
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:
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
Friday, 18 February 2011
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.
It's an interesting post, which supports my own view that the scale of the problem is often exaggerated for political and fundraising purposes.
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
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
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
Tuesday, 8 February 2011
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:
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:
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."
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:
Friday, 4 February 2011
'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:
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
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
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!
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!
Wednesday, 26 January 2011
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...
"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...
Tuesday, 25 January 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
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).
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).
Thursday, 7 October 2010
Grouse shooter likes hen harriers shock horror!
Of course it will be dismissed as lies, conspiracy and goodness knows what else by the raptor nutters, but gallowayfarm - a blog I always enjoy - has a post about the hen harriers sharing his patch. He's happy to let them take a grouse or three; not so accommodating with the crows and foxes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)