We all know that Philip Merricks loves the Hen Harrier as he has been photographed in London cuddling up to one, and so it comes as no surprise that he descibes the bird as ‘magnificent’ in his article in Country Life praising the feckless Defra Hen Harrier non-plan (Is this the glorious solution? 2 March, p76 – so that you don’t have to wade through pages of ads for country houses to find it, but also here).
His article is worth a read and he is kind enough to mention that our last e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting passed 30,000 signatures (33,655 if I remember correctly) and unkind enough to quote from a text sent to him by Chris Packham (surely that should be regarded as a private communication?).
We also know that Philip is not very clued up on the details of the Hen Harrier conflict, or is he? Does he say that Hen Harriers ‘benefit hugely, and are largely dependent upon, the habitats created by moorland management‘ but fail to say ‘but are almost completely absent from those moors that practise driven grouse shooting right across the UK‘ through error, the unkindness of an editor’s pen, or design? This rural myth that Hen Harriers depend on the grouse moor management is so old hat, and utter nonsense, that most people gave it up years ago. Hen Harriers evolved long before men in tweed (and to a higher level some would say) and are increasing in numbers in places where moorland management is not dominated by grouse shoting. We all know that, Philip must know that (surely?) and yet the readers of Country Life will have been fed the line again.
Philip seems to think that Hen Harrier reintroduction and brood-meddling are going ahead and, bit of an eye-opener this, that the Hawk and Owl Trust is going to be paid to implement them both. Where was that in the Defra non-plan? It’s good to hear that this has been stitched up behind closed doors without the need for anything like competitive tendering or red tape. Or maybe Philip is just assuming that Rory Stewart is going to hand him a large cheque because, well, because that’s how the world works. Or maybe Philip is simply wrong, although he has seemed to think that the money, if any exists, is coming his way for a long time judging by his comments on this blog.
Philip writes ‘The gamekeeper will now have the opportunity, when harriers become too numerous on his moor, to put down his weapon and call the H&OT to collect the eggs for artificial rearingand dispersal to other sites. This is a procedure for which the charity has world-class experts.’. The H&OT does have some experts on some things but I can’t spot one with this expertise on their staff. Never mind eh!
Maybe Philip’s description of Rory Stewart as an ‘acutely intelligent Environment Minister with a deft political touch‘ is his subtle opening bid for the dosh? Unless of course it is a ‘thank you’ for a promise of dosh already made. Maybe we should ask Defra of their plans rather than taking Country Life as the place where we read of government tendering and spending decisions?
But there are some good bits too! This is one of the strongest statements made by a landowner on the subject of illegal persecution of Hen Harriers; ‘The onus will now rest with gamekeepers, and especially moorland owners, to ensure that their colleagues and neighbours obey the law and to make it crystal clear that anyone who continues with illegal killing is letting down their profession and the very ethos of private land ownership by putting the future of grouse shooting and land managment in jeopardy‘. I welcome that statement and thank Philip for putting it so strongly and so clearly (although the word ‘now’ is superfluous) and for making the case for vicarious liability so well too. The RSPB welcomed the hopeless Defra plan when they should have insisted that it included vicarious liability or a commitment to license shooting estates.
[registration_form]
My guess is we are going to see quite a lot of ‘rank stupidity’ and ‘political suicide’ which is what Phillip suggests it would be for keepers to continue to persecute harriers now the wonderful plan is on the table. His comment suggesting that some keepers act illegally was also interesting – perhaps that might have been better phrased as ‘enough keepers act illegally to ensure there are no successful Hen Harriers and, because they are wide ranging, that includes both Harriers nesting on estates that do not act illegally, but also ownerships where the owner positively wants to preserve Hen Harriers (such as RSPB).’
Whatever discussions go on in the Defra bunker, there will always be the elephant in the room: that if Grouse shooting stopped this problem would disappear immediately. Persecuting Hen Harriers is tough, skilled dangerous work and getting riskier all the time as technology makes it harder to do the dirty work unobserved. And how difficult is it to shoot a Hen Harrier – I’m not sure I’ve ever been in shotgun range of one.
‘Persecuting Hen Harriers is tough, skilled dangerous work ‘
If you accidentally happened to come close to a nest they would be very easy to shoot, they fly right at you. For a game keeper it would be extremely easy but they don’t even need to shoot them, they just lay down poisoned bate.
No they shoot them.
Paul – your comment was the 33,000th on this blog. There isn’t a prize though! But thank you for your 432 contributions.
Please correct me if I’m wrong Mark but isn’t a Brood Management Scheme basically a quota system?
Mike Groves – basically yes – although it’s a quota in one place that results in the birds being moved to another place. So a local quota system.
But, actually, since there is no written down or agreed brood meddling scheme that we can review – it could be anything!
Mark – wouldn’t it be better for all concerned to adopt a non-lethal quota system? This could potentially save a lot of time, effort and money and allow harriers to breed more naturally with minimal intervention on managed grouse moors?
My house keeps getting burgled so I’ve adopted a quota system; if the burglars take the telly but not the stereo everything is fine, right?
You need to stop taking harrier persecution out of context, it’s just part of a suite of damaging activities that are ruining our moorland habitats and their biodiversity. If a quota could ever be acceptable it would simply be a green light for all the other practices.
Well they are going to have to do something for funding Mark, because the way Philip Merricks is taking them they won’t have many members left to pay subs.
Merricks is a complete idiot and seems to have very little understanding of Hen Harriers or their killers.
I tortured myself listening to his podcast on Talking Naturally. Not sure how Charlie Moores managed to stay calm.
https://soundcloud.com/talkingnaturally/tnspecial-hawk-and-owl-trust-chair-philipmerricks
I was so annoyed i had to point out his lack of logic and reason.
http://treshnishbirdlog.co.uk/?p=1103
So let me get this right. If I get lucky this year and find myself a lady friend, and we settle down together and manage not to get shot/trapped/poisoned before I manage to seduce her, then this bloke Merricks or one of his staff will come along and take our lovely eggs to god knows where, just so his mates can shoot a few more red grouse for fun?
And this is being touted as conservation?
Not on my manor, mate. Jog on and leave us all alone!
I knew there was money involved (isn’t there always?)!
Right from the very first rumours that the HOT were planning to ‘help’ Defra implement their nonsensical plan, I knew there was more to it than good will, good sense or good conservation.
This plan is doomed to failure for many -entirely natural- reasons and I simply can’t see keepers changing their ways when it comes to the persecution of our hen harriers, they must be laughing at conservationists for being so gullible as to fall for this deflecting of the truth . Its an embarrassment!
Slightly off subject but my attention was drawn to yet another RSPB ‘bashing’ article in today’s Times where the writer admits, in his closing paragraph, that gamekeepers kill hen harriers. No surprise there, but a slip of the pen perhaps, particularly when you’re trying to demonise an organisation with a proper remit to protect these birds. I do wonder what the Hawk & Owl Trust thinks its remit is.
I find Merricks and his attitudes to those who don’t always agree with him intensely irritating.
Some months ago he claimed Raptor Workers and their organisations had never tried to speak with the grouse lobby and come to an “understanding” over Hen Harriers, he even suggested he could facilitate such a meeting ( so far come to nought) Does he not know that RSPB, NERF and his own HOT ( then under better leadership) all banged their collective heads against CA, MA, NGO and GWCT intransigence for six or seven YEARS through the Environment Council led process. We all eventually walked due to the pointlessness of continuing to bang our heads on the wall of that intransigence.
Now not only is he saying how good the DEFRA plan for HH recovery is (its not, its very weak) but implying that those of us who disagree about the plan are doing so because we are against grouse shooting, a real cart before the horse moment. NO Philip we don’t like the plan because it is far too vague, has no targets so how will we measure success, partial success or failure. The game lobby are yet again only being offered carrots ( huge amounts of money for diversionary food for harriers which in reality costs peanuts) the possibility of Brood management ( The legality of which is as yet far from certain) and a southern (re) introduction to take the pressure off northern uplands.
Two things spring to mind about that
1 It won’t take the pressure off, we want harriers where they should naturally be at a natural density or nearly so.
2 Where the hell under IUCN guidelines is the healthy population that will provide the chicks for introduction? They CANNOT come from Brood Management, certainly not in the near future as most English nests are in Harrier SPAs ( Now there’s a laugh) until designation populations are reached we believe such meddling to be illegal.
“HOT has the expertise to do these things” he claims with the help of Gov’t ( our) money. Bollocks they haven’t even the expertise to understand how legally and ecologically dubious it all is.
We would LOVE a plan that offered a realistic hope of success and gave us the REAL possibility of a lot more harriers widely spread and successful in the uplands of northern England.
Sadly we don’t think this “plan” fit for purpose Philip not because we want grouse shooting banned, although some of us do, but because we do not think it very good to say the least. Where is the money for more monitoring? it costs us the raptor workers money from our own pockets to do the work, where’s the money and resources for more enforcement, which is desperately needed, Where are the real targets, the measures against which success will be judged? where is the idea we need birds to be successful on a number of real grouse moors not just in a few “safe” areas, where are the sanctions against those who transgress or carry on the killing regardless ( licensing of shoots, vicarious liability, subsidy or general licence withdrawal?
As far as the article is concerned it shows clearly that Mr Merricks has no real understanding of the utter hatred MOST in the grouse industry have for harriers, or that most killing is done in winter (on grouse moors).
The one thing he gets almost right is that the plan removes any justification for continuing persecution.
Actually there can be NO justification for persecution Philip its already illegal.
Then there is the Peregrine and the fact that nearly all and I mean virtually all territories on grouse moors have failed for years and years and years. Then there are the problems of persecution of Goshawks, Eagles and Shorties. got a solution for that too Philip?