I’ll bet you a pound to a penny that the Hen Harrier, named Rowan, found dead in Cumbria, did not die of natural causes.
Any takers? Amanda? Liam? Andrew?
Well done to the Hawk and Owl Trust for funding this satellite tag in a joint project with Natural England.
No doubt Natural England will have briefed the Defra minister, Therese Coffey, on the actual details of this dead Hen Harrier ahead of her closing the Westminster Hall debate on the future of driven grouse shooting on Monday. Although the minister will not be able to disclose the details, she should be given a full briefing ahead of the debate so that she doesn’t make any remarks which might look foolish when the full details emerge.
And, just in case there are any, the minister ought to be aware of any other current investigations into raptor persecution in and around driven grouse moors for the same reason.
[registration_form]
There cant be many of this years tagged harriers left. Just goes to show what percentage of the population meet their doom on grouse moors every year!
Prophetic words at the Huddersfield talk then Mark. Very, very sad that another beautiful bird has (probably) been slaughtered. However, as we all know, timing is everything. It will not be a wasted death this time.
Bob – thanks. Yes, isn’t it awful that we would be surprised if this bird hasn’t been shot/poisoned/trapped and rather surprised if it isn’t associated with the illegitimate so-called sport of driven grouse shooting?
I’m sure everybody is aware that we mainly hear about tagged hen harriers being killed and the probability is that the persecuted tagged hen harriers are only the tip of the iceberg. We will be losing many more hen harriers and other raptors that we never hear about and go unnoticed. I’ve heard of figures which suggest that we only know about 1 in 10 of the total number of persecuted raptors and even that high figure could be on the low side of what is actually happening away from the public eye.
The real death rate will be much higher and that seems to be something of an untold story.
According to this paper 55-74 female Hen Harriers are killed each year which is 11-15% of the UK population of breeding females and that figure does not include males or immatures (Etheridge et al. 1997). Presumably the total figure is triple that i.e. c150-225!
Which is why Anderson said ‘if we let them in’.
Sorry, i accidentally edited out that this is just in Scotland!
Have a read of the written evidence from Guy Shorrock, RSPB Senior Investigations Officer,
submitted to the UK Parliament Petitions Committee, at:
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/petitions-committee/grouse-shooting/written/40028.html
Guy states “The UK government and the RSPB are typically recording around 100 confirmed incidents of raptor persecution each year … Nobody knows what percentage of actual incidents this actually accounts for. However, based on my experience, and in particular following detailed conversation with those involved in these crimes, I would be astonished if more than 1% of offences were actually discovered each year. Aside from the extremely low detection rate, of those that are discovered, then the successful prosecution rate is less than 5%”.
Guy’s estimate for detection rate (1 in a 100) multiplied by the successful prosecution rate (1 in 20) gives an estimate of 2000 actual incidents per successful prosecution.
Guy’s submission is well worth reading.
Andy.
Surely it was not shot, the sat tags are such an obvious deterrent?
I won’t take that bet Mark, the odds aren’t good enough. I bet you though Natural England doesn’t brief Ms.Coffey
I’m sickened by this constant killing of these wonderful birds.
Why, when I see a photo of Therese Coffey do I think “She doesn’t look like she would care a Harrier’s hoot about the plight of the UK’s raptors”?
That may be an unfair judgement on my part but I do not see or hear anything from the current government that gives me hope for the future of nature.
And when one reads the Who’s Who on the Moorland Associations website – http://www.moorlandassociation.org/whos-who/ – it just makes one angry with the two-facedness of their trumpet blowing.
I would like to suggest that we all start using Twitter to prompt the MPs about the Grouse-shooting debate in Parliament. Most MPs seem to have a backlog of letters to deal with so with little time left more immediate contact methods would help. Some might get a message through by phone also……..
As Mark has said odds on shotgun pellets will have been the cause of death, but the judiciary look after their own and ranks will close yet again.
I have sent the story to my MP Rory Stewart as he had just replied to me and more than likely the killing was in his constituency . here is his first reply [Don’t fall asleep!!]
Thank you for your email. As a Government Minister I won’t be able to participate in the debate but as a constituency MP I will continue to represent your views to my successor, Dr Coffey.
As you know, I share your concerns over the illegal persecution of raptors and I would encourage anyone with information about it to report what they know to the authorities. I believe that the Government’s commitment to tackling wildlife crime was highlighted by its decision to fund the UK’s specialist National Wildlife Crime Unit fully until at least 2020.
With regard to concerns about the impact of grouse shooting on moorland, in my view game management can make an important contribution to biodiversity by providing cover for wildlife, and through the creation and care of habitats such as woodland, grouse moors, beetle banks and hedgerows. The vast majority of grouse moors that are sites of special scientific interest are now in favourable or recovering condition, whereas only around half were in that state in 2006. This reflects growing awareness among moorland managers of the importance and sensitivity of upland biodiversity.
Game management plays an important role in the rural economy, generating income and employment in some of our most remote communities. For example, shooting contributes in the region of £2 billion to the rural economy and supports the equivalent of around 70,000 full-time jobs.
Of course I take your concerns very seriously, as I am sure my successor in Defra will. And, as a constituency MP for a rural area, I will continue to monitor the situation closely.
Stewart writes ‘The vast majority of grouse moors that are sites of special scientific interest are now in favourable or recovering condition’ which is straight out of the DEFRA cum MA little red book but is it even correct?
It is very different from ‘Only 14% of UK upland peatland sites are in favourable condition’ [RSPB evidence to petition which cites the report below]’
Committee on Climate Change 2015. Reducing emissions and preparing for climate change: 2015 Progress Report to Parliament. Summary and Recommendations. London: Committee on Climate Change.
Quotes:
1. Harmful land management practices persist, particularly on sensitive peat habitats in the uplands
2. Wetland habitats, including the majority of upland areas with carbon-rich peat soils, are in poor condition. The damaging practice of burning peat to increase grouse yields continues, including on internationally-protected sites. The Government has set ambitious targets to improve the ecological condition of important habitats and halt the decline in England’s biodiversity. However it is far from certain that these goals will be met.
Stewarts comments refer to England only and presumably thr RSPB figure (which i can’t find in their citation), is for the UK.
[I haven’t been able to get into the RSPB website, for a few days now, so can’t check further.]
As I’m sure you realise, to be considered in ‘recovering’ condition, any SSSI must be under management which it is believed ought to improve its condition towards favourable. In most cases this simply means delivery of a management agreement under an agri-environment scheme. There is little or no requirement to demonstrate actual physical progress on the ground, and in any case change in these habitats may be slow. The same management agreements that are helping subsidise DGS are therefore being used to underpin claims that the site are recovering.
The £2 Billion quid he refers to is almost certainly derived from the PACEC reports 2006 & 2014. The League Against Cruel Sports produced a review which absolutely demolished it – http://data.axmag.com/data/201412/20141211/U28561_F316223/FLASH/index.html. This and other LACS papers on the real economics of shooting are well worth reading – fun even. The money involved was almost certainly grossly over estimated and approx a third of shooting actually involves clays! If you pass the details on to Rory I’m sure he’ll be grateful to be put right since this is such a very important matter affecting a lot of land, people and wildlife. I couldn’t track it down, but one of the papers quotes a question in the original PACEC questionnaire to grouse estates, shooting clubs etc which suggested respondents make sure they give as big a sum as possible re their expenditure along the lines of ‘as politicians love to tax us and put their noses in the trough’ – yes very objective and professional. Would love to hear that being quoted at a parliamentary hearing!
Well, judging from the H&OT report it looks like a case of either shooting or poisoning. If so, let’s hope the H&OT will see sense and stop muddying the water by cooperating with DEFRA’s useless recovery plan.
But Hawk & Owl Trust say this on their Harrier download – look at the last sentence :-
“20. What if the initiative fails and grouse shooting is banned and the management on the moors is reduced?
Further to the study carried out at Berwyn Special Protection Area following the Second World War there was a decline in the grouse moor management and by the late 1990’s driven grouse shooting had ceased. The main findings saw grouse number decline after driven grouse shooting ceased. Between 1983 – 2002 Hen harriers declined by 48%. Buzzards, Peregrine’s, Corvids & Predators increased. Also at Langholm in Scotland, Harriers numbers also dropped from 20 to 5 pairs after the gamekeepers left. Therefore, if grouse shooting is banned it seriously raises the question if Hen Harriers would ever recover.”
This is debunked in Marks’ post hearing evidence.
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/petitions-committee/grouse-shooting/written/41655.html
HOT have lost the plot. I am surprised they aren’t mentioning the fictitious BTO moorland data which what’s-his-name mentioned in the oral evidence.
I should correct that. I misremembered. I read the transcription and What’s-his-name was referring to some vague statement from the BTO.
The fly in the ointment continues to be the “neutral stance of RSPB to shooting”.
How can they continue to demean their own special employees such as Guy,Jeff and probably hundreds of others with a stance that almost certainly makes those committing these crimes laugh and make them more secure that they can do as they like.
It just has to make the Judges and Magistrates pass lesser sentences on these crimes.
Come on Martin Harper et al tell us how any shooting cannot be cruel or do you believe if you got a load of lead shot into your ar** it would not hurt.
Time someone there spoke up,in fact well past the time really.
Crikey wasn’t the RSPB formed because some feathers were being taken from Great Crested Grebes.That makes the present stance unbelievable.
Well done the Hawk and Owl Trust and chairman Philip Merricks indeed. Subjects both of past rudeness and mockery on this blog. What might have been had a civilised, reasoned debate ensued?
PD – you’re such a twit. I thought you were giving up on this blog – but then you’ve said that in the past too.
Nice – the man behind the blog! The decision makers reading this blog will no doubt observe that you appear to want to ban anything you disagree with and dis anybody who disagrees with you!!
You’re fighting for change. So am I – To change you so that you improve your chances of “Standing Up for Nature”.
It was your rudeness to Philip Merricks (post Sheffield conference) that set me on this course!
But I do have a long held belief that to effectively “Stand up for Nature” those of us that are appalled by the “State of Nature” have to recognise the failure of those that purport to do the biz. Its as well for you you’re not a football manager!
btw, my theory will be put to the test on Monday. I hope, for the sake of Hebden Bridge and the natural world that sustains us, I’m proved wrong!
Until then unless you want to engage in a reasonable debate now?
PD – btw it won’t and I’d love to, but you are not interested in debate, nor in reasonableness as your comments here over many years have demonstrated.
And yet I note you’ll engage with Andrew Fox who argues from a position of weakness but not with me. Instead you simply reinforce my point. What conclusions do your opponents draw from that I wonder? You’re a bit of an intellectual bully maybe
PD – you’re just snide really aren’t you. There is no engagement by you with the arguments, just digs at me. So, no, I don’t feel like I need to treat you as a welcome guest here. You’re not, you’re really not. I may be a bit busy for the rest of the day so you might have to try your next attempts at needling tomorrow. Pip pip!
Breathtaking.
I agree with the essential case for control of DGS if not an outright ban. I believe in win-win and think that can be acheived along the lines Jeff Knott outlined at the select committee. Not much to argue about there really.
The issue I’m banging on about is how to get either your or Jeffs case into legislation.
You and I probably shared the disappointment of Neil Kinnock blowing a general election with a display of triumphalism that appeared to hurt his campaign. How does your triumphalism with “We’re strolling to the winning line” help either your or the RSPBs case? The opposition are already casting you as extremists/fundamentalists. Not going to go down to well with the voting public is it?
PD – you can’t quite get the your lines right can you? Don’t you mean ‘us’ as extremists not ‘you’?
As you probably know, the ‘strolling to the winning line’ was about the slow progress to the end of the e-petition not about the ultimate goal. So you can drop that jibe. There has never been any sense in this blog that the banning of driven grouse shooting was imminent.
Mark, thanks for engaging. I’m really not trying to needle just trying to illustrate how a fantastic campaign in every other respect can be thwarted by an incredibly poor presentation layer.
Like you (in your statement to Simon Hart MP) I am just a ordinary member of the (voting) public and as such my perceptions count. I perceived your “strolling” statement to be arrogant and if it wasn’t meant that way it was at the very least unfortunate.
The Donald has a habit of saying outrageous things and then backtracking. Mind you I half suspect he’ll get elected (god forbid) so what do I know?
So what about “Driven Grouse Shooting is doomed”? and as an exercise in “How to Win Friends and Influence People” how does you memo to Therese Coffey this morning work where you said:
“Today I assume that you will close the Westminster Hall debate on driven grouse shooting. I’m just guessing here, but I’d be surprised if you will be signalling that Defra is asking for parliamentary time for a ban on driven grouse shooting. OK, that time will come eventually.”