Have a look at this one

19 Replies to “Have a look at this one”

1. Wow – great stuff from the RSPB! It sounds as though they may be making an evolutionary breakthrough and beginning to develop something resembling a notochord.

2. Why then did the RSPB withdraw their objection to the Hermitage Castle Wind Farm right on the edge of Langholm Moor where there were 50 plus hen harriers living last summer? Does not make any sense.

   1. Perhaps they decided that they didn’t have grounds the sustain an objection?! Seems reasonable.

      1. Over 330 objections so far and only 25 supporting comments suggests there are many reasonable grounds to refuse the application. What will the RSPB say when the first HH is cut in two?

3. Martin’s Blog contains all the information up to date as to why the position of HOT over brood management is just plain wrong.
   I note in the comments a claim from Andrew Gilruth that supplementary feeding does not produce more grouse! Well it reduces the grouse chick take by harriers by 86% so harriers cannot be the reason numbers of grouse do not rise.
   Is Gilruth saying GWCT do not support DF?
   It also appears that given the autumn density of grouse in the last two seasons moderate numbers could have been shot at Langholm. A lowered density of grouse in winter might also have been expected to reduce the rate of winter predation and if fact the density of winter predators.
   Do GWCT and the other members of the grouse lobby involved want the scheme to fail and hence they recommended no shooting?
   I’m surprised RSPB let them get away with that!

4. Thanks Mark. I don’t want to waste your readers’ time by repeating many of the points that I made on your blog last week. However, for the first time ever, gamekeepers on grousemoors will have a real and logical reason not to break the law and not persecute Hen Harriers. As all know, the Hen Harriers continue to be persecuted which is a despicable crime but as it is just about undetectable, we have to be smart and make it in their interests not to do so ever again.

   As someone said to me on the phone recently, when gamekeepers on the moors have a shotgun in one hand and a mobile phone in the other, they will, for the first time ever, now have a reason to use their phone to report the presence of a nest rather than, as had been the case, their shotgun.

   As I am sure you know, the Hawk & Owl Trust has a long and effective history of working with land managers throughout the UK for the benefit of wild birds of prey. This underpinned the unanimous decision by the Trustees at the Board meeting in November that the 10+ years of an increasingly adversarial approach (from both sides) to the Hen Harrier/grouse moor issue was having the effect of decreasing the likelihood of creating a secure conservation future for HHs. It goes without saying that this is something that the Trust passionately wants.

   You may like to know that your numerous blogs and the accompanying comments have had the effect of bringing forward a lot of support for the Trust from our members. In fact, the clear evidence to date shows that there have been significantly more messages of support from members than the opposite. I am told this has caused some serious and nationally known conservationists to join the Trust, including one ornithological Prof who has become a member and another who asked if he can join the four Profs on the Trust’s Scientific Advisory Ctte. As you will recall, this Ctte is chaired by Ian Newton and is currently made up of Profs Des Thomson, Steve Redpath and Bryn Green.

   You will also know that we have the support of Natural England and the Environment Council. Both organisations see this brood management trial as the most appropriate and effective way forward to resolve this counterproductive conflict and to create a secure future for Hen Harriers in the English moorlands.

   I am sure that you will be pleased to know that the Board of Trustees will discuss the whole issue at their meeting next month when all opinions received will be fully considered.

   1. This is a comment from Steve which he had difficulty in posting so I, Mark, have posted it for him:

      Philip

      It’s fascinating that Stephen Redpath publishes papers stressing the importance of openness and objectivity in tackling this conflict but:

      a) the Hawk and Owl Trust, of which Stephen is a key member, chooses to promote brood management ‘behind closed doors’ with you engaging in this blog without revealing your concurrent discussions with and the Trust’s true position;

      b) the Trust remains silent when asked if it endorses publication of the details of brood management and public consultation on what you propose;

      c) scientific analyses by Stephen Redpath take high-yielding driven grouse shooting as a given, as non-negotiable – the only thing that can change is predation by hen harriers. In other words, intensive driven grouse moor management must be allowed to continue, come what may, irrespective of its negative effects, and the hen harrier population must be managed to allow this.

      Your position appears to be secretive and far from objective.

      Publication of what you have planned, and the evidential (ecological and legal) basis for it, may well change that perception. Continuing secrecy will only re-enforce suspicions.

5. Its quite clear that the majority of raptor workers do not like the idea of brood management, but both RSPB and NERF were and probably still are prepared to consider it once there is a reasonably stable and healthy harrier population indicating that the level of persecution has reduced considerably. The counter argument is it will give us more chicks now, yet Etheridge et al showed harrier populations grow at about 13% per annum in the absence of persecution at least initially, that’s all we and the harriers need.
   Diversionary or supplementary feeding reduces the number of grouse chicks taken by breeding harriers by approximately 86%. The grouse lobby used to say and probably still do that they would not role out DF until the end of Langholm 2. Why you may ask, just playing for time?
   That’s all they have ever done play for time, they saw and many probably still do that intransigence whilst playing for time was a legitimate tactic when dealing with the conservation side initially through the Environment Council and now DEFRA. I was told by a keeper when we were still involved with the process via the Environment Council ” We keep you talking whilst the keepers on the ground deal with the problem—- no harriers no problem” that is not a willing partner looking for a way out of illegality.
   Figures produced during that process showed that each and every grouse moor should and could support a harrier breeding density of 2 pairs per 5000 acres without a measurable change in grouse take, that is without DF.
   So the answer to the harrier problem is ACCEPTANCE of the SCIENCE by the grouse lobby and DF. Despite claims to the contrary, in the absence of persecution harriers are quite good at breeding and are not colonial although they will nest closer together than most raptors.
   Currently we don’t (and we may never) need brood meddling to solve the harrier problem we need diversionary feeding and an acceptance of the science.
   A brood management trial gives the grouse lobby another delaying tactic to do nothing until the end of trial report. It is and will still be easier to deal with the problem illegally, after all the satellite tagged harriers that currently winter on grouse moors almost without fail ” Go missing” no proof of what happened and no prosecutions.
   If the so called trial takes place in an SPA designated for harriers before we reach the designation population level I feel sure it will trigger a complaint to the EU.
   Philip thinks a brood meddling trial will break an impasse, it could be it just delays the grouse industry having to make hard decisions.
   It also allows government and its agent DEFRA to ignore legitimate calls for vicarious liability and robustly policed licensing of game shooting.

6. The two comments above are interesting.
   #-

   Re the first one from Steve, perhaps your readers might like to read the two papers from Prof Steven Redpath of Aberdeen University published in the Journal of Applied Ecolgy:
   – Understanding and managing conservation conflicts – Redpath et al
   – Working with stakeholders to reduce conflict- Elston, Spezia,Baines and Redpath.
   Conflict resolution is the key. Which is something in which many of those who post comments and engage with social media appear to be not too interested.
   There have been many comments asking for full details of the brood management scheme trial. As you Mark broke the news on your blog about the Trust being involved with Defra midway through the Trust’s discussions and negotiations with Defra, it must be somewhat obvious to all that the details are not settled and hence there are no agreed details to be released.
   #-Re the second comment, it should be evident the scientific advice concerning a brood management scheme trial (NB trial) that the Hawk and Owl Trust receives from its powerhouse of Profs on its scientific advisory ctte is second to none.

   1. I intend to email members of you scientific committee to ask for their views. I do not like how HOT are name dropping people involved or supporting this BM trial. Private texts from Chris Packham have even been cited. You must respect the view and experience of your members. Phillip, if you want to advocate HH BM, do it on a personal capacity and not via an NGO.

   2. I’ve read both of those papers Philip, both are interesting but at the end of the day what you are proposing is probably not necessary at all, as DF solves the game industry’s problem that’s already proven.
      Why aren’t they using it—– they still think they can get away with minimal harriers.
      As the Langholm 1 head keeper reportedly said “it doesn’t work the bloody harriers are still here.”
      They have virtually no reason to kill harriers now, yet keepers in this area still go to known harrier winter roosts carrying guns when they know there is a harrier about. That is what you are up against an illogical hatred by both keepers and owners. I don’t think BM will make a ha’p’th of difference without a reduction in current persecution levels and the only way to that is the metaphorical stick not the carrot (licensing, robustly policed and vicarious liability or a complete ban or a realistic threat of it.)
      Surely the way forward is the minimal interventionist approach which is DF ( where necessary, not every nest) which we know works rather than a trial of BM.
      I and I’m sure all other raptor workers would like an end to what you call conflict and we call illegal persecution but in nearly a decade of talking the industry has not given one inch, but BM still seems very much a step too far scientifically and emotionally.

      Compromise means both sides have to move surely?

   3. Phil

      People, not least those who have been engaged in the protection of hen harriers and other birds of prey, have every right to debate this in public, including on social media. I very much hope that the plan will be made public – and be consulted upon – rather than left to to you and others to discuss and agree in private. Transparency is never a bad idea when attempting to address high profile, contentious issues in which there are public stakeholders (such as those engaged in hen harrier nest protection.

      The expertise of your scientific panel is beyond question. That they are considering brood management as the only solution is clearly biased. Perhaps they might be asked to investigate other options too – such as lower-yielding grouse shoot management?

      Steve

      1. Expertise of scientific panel beyond question. Absolutely.

         Just out of interest who funds much of their work?

         Money always enters the analysis somewhere, science has to be funded particularly academic science?

   4. Philip, yet another story of a tagged Hen Harrier being shot, this was not only tagged but a well followed bird called Heather. If this bird wasn’t safe how can you trust that others will be? http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rare-bird-and-blog-star-heather-the-harrier-shot-dead-30954300.html

      I’m sorry but the shooting community cannot be trusted. The brood management scheme will be a total waste of time and money, as already stated it’s yet another delaying tactic. It seems to me that the HOT are in danger of being used by a criminal gang of wildlife thugs and by the time the BM trial ends it could be too late for our Harriers. We would then be looking at a reintroduction program, still HOT could always get money for running that too.

7. Huge amount of comment and [potential] effort being poured into HH situation – not complaining but I doubt HH are the only wildlife predating grouse. Question: if grouse moor gamekeepers promise not to kill HH’s in return for HH management, and accept that this may not be 100% effective, are they not going to redouble their efforts to remove all the other predators? My personal view is that as killing raptors is illegal there should not be conciliatory measures. In any other circumstances this would be considered outrageous. Laws are designed to manage society and allowing a minority group to redesign those laws to suit their own purposes is a thin edge of a dangerous wedge.
   In respect of the other issues around intensive grouse moor management, general habitat condition, water, flooding, pollution etc. landowners or managers are very privileged in society and should have a strong moral [if not legal] responsibility to care for their land with due respect for their neighbours and society in general. This they are patently not doing. Brood management of HH does absolutely nothing for these serious issues.
   My instinct is to distrust the motives of the H&OT in ‘offering’ brood management so soon in this process, particularly as the cause of the problem is undoubtedly a range of criminal acts. This type of wildlife management will lead to the countryside being managed as a zoo. This is not under any circumstances an answer to the HH problem, or indeed any other conflict between humans and wildlife.

8. In response:
   1) Firstly to SG – I am replying on behalf of the Hawk & Owl Trust, an NGO that focusses on working for wild birds of prey and their habitats. The Trust’s approach to resolving this dreadful Hen Harrier/grouse moor issue was formulated at the Trust’s AGM at the end of last year where all members present voted (nem con – ie no one against) for the Trust becoming involved in the HH issue. And secondly by a formal meeting of the Board of Trustees where the Trustees voted unanimously to involve the Trust’s expertise in a brood management scheme trial.
   I am told that messages from members to the Trust’s offices and reserves around the country over the last few days clearly indicate clear support for the Trust’s position. Mesasges of support from members greatly outnumber messages of opposition to the Trust re a brood management trial.

   2) Secondly to Paul. I couldn’t agree more with you that diversionary feeding (DF) is a brilliant
   technique. I went to Langholm several years ago to learn how it was done after our attempts to use DF to dissuade a Hobby (nesting in an old crow’s nest) from predating the avocet chicks on our Elmley National Nature Reserve had failed.
   DF is indeed a crucial element of the Defra Hen Harrier recovery six point plan but it won’t solve the issue by itself.
   Yes indeed I quite agree with you that compromise and conflict resolution does mean that both sides have to move. And that means accepting all six points of the HH recovery plan and not cherry picking the ones you like and opposing the ones you don’t.

   3) I agree that it is a very good idea to debate the issue in public. That is what has been happening on Mark’s very useful blog. But the debate needs to come from those who have a genuine understanding of HHs and grouse moors. Not form those who are motivated by an extreme dislike of shooting and shooting interests and have no wish to see compromise and conflict resolution. Hence the importance of the Hen Harrier recovery six point plan.

   1. Hi Philip, thanks for your response. Is this the AGM where the issue of HH was discussed? http://hawkandowl.org/2014-members-weekend-agm/ I was aware that less than 30 members attended! I was a HOT member and was not asked to vote in absence. If I had known about the vote, I would have attended. With the greatest respect, most of your Trustees do not have the scientific background to be able to vote on the trial, even with the advice of your committee. I am sure you have had a lot of interest from the shooting world rather than the general public. But, do not presume that those of us against BM are necessarily motivated by a dislike of shooting and of the shooting interests. I feel the Trust should consider diversionary feeding and tagging of the juveniles, even though we have evidence that this doesn’t deter the shooters. At least it gives us a rough estimation of their last location before they ‘vanish’. Philip, there is no doubt that you have achieved wonderful things on your reserves, but this issue must be opened up to HOTs members.

9. Philip, firstly there is no agreed published plan. If by plan you mean what GWCT has been promoting then there are indeed serious issues with it, which are not unsolveable.
   1 The density quoted before BM steps in is far far too low at 10km between nests. This equates as roughly 30 times lower than the 2 pairs per 5000 acres the science has previously justified. Both sides should be accepting of the science not cherry picking it.
   2 It seems perfectly reasonable given the current animosity to harriers and the persecution levels implied by nest failures and satellite tagged derived information to expect there to be a serious reduction in persecution before BM is considered, particularly as many of us believe that DF solves most if not all the problem.
   3 The only way to measure that reduction of persecution is at a population level,where it is stable or increasing with harriers no longer in danger of extinction. We can discuss what that level is but it is significantly more than this year’s 4 pairs.
   4 Many raptor workers are very concerned that BM being used primarily to keep nesting harrier densities relatively low is the back door to a quota system that might then be applied in principle to the other species game shooting think are a problem——Peregrines, Goshawks, Short eared Owls, Buzzards, all species whose populations are currently seriously damaged by persecution on grouse moors.
   5 It might be much easier for the conservation side to accept a degree of BM ( if the above issues are dealt with) if it were coupled to what we have been advocating, namely vicarious liability and licensing of shoots. The legitimately operating estates have nothing to fear of either except a minor cost increase.

   To many of us all this seems quite reasonable given we are dealing largely with crime and criminals who currently seem to want their cake and to eat it too.

10. Philip,I have a awful gut feeling that your intentions are as you see it for the best interests of the Hen Harrier just like thousands who have signed Mark’s petition and for sure your other successes should earn our respect.
    Where I start to find it really difficult is when you say that the debate should not come from those motivated by an extreme dislike of shooting and shooting interests and have no wish to see compromise and conflict resolution.
    That seems a really weird thing for you to say as the first compromise just has to be that the shooting interests agree to stop persecuting Hen Harriers and other raptors before even considering anything.
    Whereas those who dislike shooting commit no crime then the other side persecuting Hen Harriers it is definitely a criminal offence.
    You must know that we all want a resolution to this conflict and it would be simple if no further criminal activity took place against Hen Harriers.
    Whatever makes you think a tag will stop a H H being shot,surely the nearest person to that H H is the person who shot it and so dispose of it immediately.The tag making no difference at all.

Comments are closed.