Eleanor is a wildlife conservationist and raptor enthusiast from Northumberland with an MSc in Biodiversity Conservation and Ecosystem Management from Newcastle University.
She indulges her passion for wildlife through photography and writing.
Twitter: @DaisyEleanorug
We have all heard of the expression ‘to turn a blind eye’, meaning to pretend that a particular act or occurrence has gone unnoticed and unregistered, to ignore something or even to neglect it. I am sure there have been times in most people’s lives where they have ‘turned a blind eye’ to something. Though (hopefully!) these incidents have been rather minor ones, incidents like pretending you did not see your little brother smash your mum’s vase, or ignoring the fact that your dog just ate your favourite pair of shoes. They are incidents that are minor irritations, but they are not ones that will not have a greater impact on our lives and not generally things of huge importance. They are not for example, ones that could impact the natural world, the ecosystem, or to be more specific, the protection of our birds of prey.
Raptors. Possibly the longest suffering of our surviving wildlife in the UK and when it comes to persecution of these species, you could say the UK has become something of an expert at turning a blind eye. Our shores are home to so many examples of raptor persecution that we would be spoilt for choice for incidents to discuss. In this case however, we are talking of a very particular incident. One that screams the serious neglect of our raptors. So, where in the UK are we? Lancashire. The home of the Red Rose, Victoria Wood, Ian McKellen and, of course, The Forest of Bowland. An Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, covered in vast and diverse habitats including fells, valleys and peat moorland, a Special Protection Area (SPA) for birds of prey, and a haven for some of our most spectacular raptor species, including the Hen Harrier and the Peregrine Falcon! Or at least, it should. Over recent years however, a black cloud has descended over The Forest of Bowland. A black cloud that has brought with it the wide-scale, relentless persecution of birds of prey. The situation has now become so serious in Bowland that the region is what some people (the term originating with gamekeepers) call a ‘Raptor Free Zone’. The fact that such a ‘zone’ should exist in an area where these beautiful birds are native is not only a tragedy, but a total and utter embarrassment to our nation.
The Peregrine Falcon, is a spectacularly agile, wickedly fast and beautiful bird of prey, who can usually be found in areas of upland moorland during the breeding season. Nowadays however, there are more breeding pairs existing in London than across all the moorland in northern England. Moorland where red grouse shooting serves as the main upland land use. Seven years ago the story was very different, Peregrine Falcons were thriving throughout Bowland and there were at least 18 occupied Peregrine territories, with approximately 11 successful nesting pairs in most seasons. However, something changed in 2010, as the number of breeding Peregrine pairs in Bowland began to decline dramatically and many territories were left abandoned. Coincidentally (hmmm), 2010 was also the year when Natural England instructed the British Trust for Ornithology (BTO) to revoke Schedule 1 disturbance licenses held by members of the The North West Raptor Group, who have monitored and protected raptors in the Forest of Bowland since 1974. Why? It was claimed that there was a concern that these raptor protection specialists would ‘disturb’ the birds and duplicate nest visits, threatening their chances of breeding successfully. However, somewhat bizarrely, they continued to grant the group raptor licenses for use outside of Bowland, including licenses to monitor Golden Eagles in Western Scotland. With no seemingly legitimate reasons provided for this removal of licenses, such a decision could be seen as something highly suspicious. Perhaps they did not want this monitoring to continue? Perhaps they have something to hide? Or even somebody’s interests to protect? Certainly not the interests of our raptors it would seem, especially when we remember that it was also Natural England who last year granted licenses to gamekeepers allowing them to shoot Buzzards, so that pheasant stocks could be protected, with little (if any) justification for such a decision. Since Natural England took the decision to revoke disturbance licenses held by members of the NWRPG, 16 breeding Peregrine nesting territories now lie abandoned in Bowland. In addition, 7 pairs of breeding Hen Harrier, the symbol of The Forest of Bowland and a species on the brink of extinction in England, have also been lost from the area. But perhaps those of us who question these decisions and their outcomes are just being too cynical? Jumping to irrational conclusions even? Unfortunately however, for those of us involved in raptor protection, cynicism has become somewhat ingrained within us, not because we wish it, but purely because we have been given too many reasons to think in such a way.
It’s curious. Very curious. So what is going on? How could 99% of Peregrine Falcon territories possibly have been found abandoned throughout the Forest of Bowland since 2010? Flooding? Disease? A plague of locusts? I think we have all guessed what could have caused such a devastating collapse of a local population. Persecution. Why? The same old reason: to boost Red Grouse stocks (because they are suffering terribly). In Bowland, it seems as if there is a constant and unrelenting witch hunt being carried out against birds of prey, the Peregrine and Hen Harrier in particular, as well as against those individuals who have dedicated their lives to protecting these birds. Nesting sites have been destroyed, eggs have been taken, chicks have disappeared, and 16 adult pairs of Peregrine Falcon have been lost from these now abandoned territories. But these losses are no secret, nor a revelation. This is no MI5 operation that must be kept from everyone except the powers that be, for ‘the greater good’. This is known about by many, but so far, the pleas and protection efforts exhibited by those members of the North West Raptor Protection Group have fallen on deaf ears. Or perhaps just unwilling and uninterested ears.
Sadly, the situation is not improving, if anything, it continues to deteriorate. An example of this took place not so long ago when a water metering system was installed in a stream bed on moorland owned by United Utilities. Although this in itself may not sound like an issue, it was not the installation of the system that caused the problem, but rather the location of the system. Where was this? Shockingly, right next to an area which has been identified and used as a Peregrine nesting site for many years. Unfortunately, this was no isolated incident as 100 metres directly opposite from the same peregrine nesting ledge, a gamekeeper had installed a crow trap overlooking the nest site. Strange, is it not, that highly trained and experienced members of a raptor study group would be denied licenses to protect these birds in case they should ‘disturb them’, yet a water metering system (which would regularly be checked) and a gamekeeper’s crow trap (also regularly checked) should be conveniently installed right across from a historic peregrine nesting site! Surely, anyone possessing even the slightest ounce of common sense would see that this would cause great disturbance if Peregrines returned to breed at this site in the future! But it does not stop there. In many areas, almost right on top of other Peregrine sites throughout Bowland, vermin traps (designed to catch weasels, stoats and a variety of corvids) have been installed alongside or close to abandoned nesting sites, which again, must be checked on a regular basis by the gamekeeper. Can this really just be passed off as innocent or unaware disturbance to sites, or is this blatant and unabashed intrusion to prevent breeding taking place? So how can this be allowed? Naivety? Sheer incompetence? Or worse? Are these planned strategies to prevent any prospecting Peregrine from settling down to breed? With a fresh dose of that cynicism, I am going to fall (rather dramatically) in the direction of the latter.
To document every single outrageous and fundamentally unfair event that has occurred within the Forest of Bowland over recent years would be a bit like me trying to document every single significant act of the World Wars in one (reasonably sized) article. It would be impossible. Unfortunately for our raptors, this is their own version of War. War against the Red Grouse shooting industry and those who are willing to stop at nothing (even the law) to boost their grouse populations and consequently their profits. Sadly, the Red Grouse industry will always have one thing behind it that gives it the upper hand, no matter how immoral. Money. Money makes the world go round it would seem, even when it comes at the cost of losing some of our most precious and threatened raptor species. And what of Natural England’s position in this rather dirty game of politics? It seems that by denying licenses preventing a dedicated raptor group from protecting threatened birds in the Forest of Bowland, they are providing support to estates owners and their gamekeepers. Such a decision, which has possibly been approved at the highest level, indicates that they are almost allowing raptors to be destroyed with impunity in Bowland. They are, quite simply, turning a blind eye.
Raptors have been shot, trapped, disappeared and driven from the Forest of Bowland and this trend is forever continuing and increasing. The situation in Bowland is nothing short of dire, with raptors and those who work for them constantly fighting what currently seems like a losing battle. In 2017 it would still seem that the care we have for our environment and our wildlife and ecosystems has not come far at all, with those who commit crimes against our natural world escaping unscathed and with nothing but a slap on the wrist (if that). If something does not change and change soon, these beautiful birds that we have the privilege to see in our country will disappear into nothingness. Disappear into a silent, desolate moorland, where no life but that of the Red Grouse will continue to flourish.
It’s dire, it’s depressing, but it is fact. However, we remain defiant and determined, and although the persecutors of our birds of prey may be winning this battle, we refuse to let them win this war.
For more information on what is happening in Bowland follow the link below:
Forest of Bowland Raptors Being Undermined by Complacency and Bad Politics
[registration_form]
I’m very sorry to say that I didn’t know about this – well, not the detail anyway. Very well written piece with facts, anger and determination to the fore. Natural England must surely be dismantled. I am going to send this piece to Michael Gove and then we might see whether he is a doer or, as my father would have said, “all mouth and trousers”.
I’d let this go without a response if I was a better person and I certainly don’t think this is the place for a detailed rehashing of all the old arguments over licensing in Bowland. But, having been involved in some of the decisions made here, I resent the implication that licensing had anything to do with facilitating the disturbance and persecution of raptors in Bowland. It is simply not the case. Licences were revoked for very good reasons, in order to avoid practices that risked nest sites being visited several times with resulting unacceptable levels of disturbance. That could not be allowed to happen at a time when those really responsible for the losses of breeding raptors in Bowland (and elsewhere in northern England) were desperate to blame anyone but themselves for the declines. The licensing system is there to ensure that any disturbance through monitoring is kept to an absolute minimum and that monitoring close to nests is undertaken only by those who are willing to adhere to the licence conditions. It is there to ensure that when moorland owners claim undue disturbance by raptor workers is a factor in raptor declines, it can be clearly demonstrated that this is not the case. There are very good reasons for having a rigorous system in place even though that can result in criticism from those who are not issued with all the licences they apply for. A final point that I think is worth making in relation to the threats faced by raptors across northern England. Monitoring breeding raptors only requires a licence when nest sites are approached closely so that there is a resulting risk of disturbance. There is nothing to stop anyone from carrying out observations from a safe distance and reporting any untoward activities that are witnessed.
Revoking the licences worked well, didn’t it?
Ian you know very well licenses held by members of the North West Raptor Group were revoked because of politics, and not because members had been accused of making unnecessary visits to nest sites or any wrong doing, quite the reverse had happened in fact. If that was the case, why are schedule 1 licences still being issued for the same species for use outside the borders of the Forest of Bowland? Significantly, why are the BTO still prepared to issue to me personally my class ‘A’ ringing permit covering a wide variety of schedule 1 species, including Peregrine falcon, Goshawk, Red Kite and Golden Eagle? The simple answer is because Natural England did not want our members working inside Bowland because the level of persecution we were able to highlight was embarrassing estates and their gamekeepers. This was not the first time our licenses had been revoked because of this simple explanation as well you know. On a previous occasion our licenses were reinstated after an MP had raised the issue in the House of Commons on our behalf.
When information had been supplied to Natural England by group members highlighting witnessed accounts of unnecessary nest visits we had encountered, Natural England’s response was ‘stop wasting our time’. When I asked the BTO to explain the reason for Natural England’s decision I was told by the licensing officer we had done nothing wrong but the BTO were obliged to follow your instructions.
Its all water under the bridge now but …[Mark writes: passage removed because I felt it was too personal]. Natural England’s actions preventing our members undertaking the work we had responsibly undertaken since 1974, has now allowed the regions raptors to be annihilated with impunity, I hope Natural England are proud of what has been achieved?
Mark writes: I will moderate comments on this blog to try to ensure that issues are raised but in a polite and non-personalised (ghastly word but it works here) manner. And I might terminate this thread if it descends into a ‘yes you did’ ‘no we didn’t’ exchange.
“There is nothing to stop anyone from carrying out observations from a safe distance and reporting any untoward activities that are witnessed.”
I think the elephant in the room not being addressed is that Terry says the NWRPG did report “untoward activities” on multiple occasions only to apparently be fobbed off, and inexplicably no action was apparently taken.
I’m highlighting this not to be controversial or argumentative, but to focus the debate.
In addition, it’s my understanding that on CRoW Access land you need permission from the landowner if you are visiting this land with the specific intention of engaging in monitoring. This was highlighted on a course I did last year, when a conservation NGO said they were unable to monitor habitats on Access land because often or usually landowners refuse permission, and the terms of CRoW Access land does not give a right to visit for the purpose of monitoring.
Again I think it is important to build up a big picture of the facts for a focused understanding of this issue. Fallacious arguments often fail to address all the facts of the big picture.
If what Terry has said is correct, and reports about possible breaches of the law were not investigated and followed up, this needs to be acknowledged. I have seen nothing to dispute or contradict the veracity of what Terry has reported.
Monitoring is NOT FORBIDDEN under CROW unless you are being paid.
Lets make this very simple as there are important implications at stake here, in particular my credibility. In Mr. Carters first comment he has implied that licenses held by members of the North West Raptor Group were withheld because, and I quote, ” in order to avoid practices that risked nest sites being visited several times with resulting unacceptable levels of disturbance.” I now ask Mr. Carter to produce tangible evidence held by Natural England or BTO, supporting his implication. This is all news to me, and I am able to say unequivocally that neither Natural England or the BTO ever raised such serious concerns detailing any such incidents I had been involved with previously.
Ian, I am still waiting for the proof you claim to have had that I visited any schedule 1 nest inside or outside the Forest of Bowland unnecessarily. If you are unwilling to provide the proof already asked you for, then I must assume you never had any proof in the first place that substantiates your claim. This being the case you should apologise immediately.
An excellent summary Eleanor. The first step with any campaign is “awareness”. Well done on raising awareness of what has been going on. I used to spend a lot of time in Bowland, especially after the Open Access legislation, but it always felt like a place that didn’t welcome walkers on the high moors. I think part of the problem with Bowland is that atrocities like this can go undetected because it isn’t so well observed, because not a lot of people go there. It’s a beautiful part of Lancashire, please keep highlighting what is going on.
An accurate portrayal of the recent history of raptors in Bowland. Natural England has a lot to answer for.
Innocent – Yes it did work well. It removed any possibility that moorland managers could point the finger at raptor workers and multiple monitoring visits to nest sites as one of the causes of raptor declines. Of course it hasn’t stopped the declines in Bowland or elsewhere, for reasons that we are all too well aware of. It needn’t stop effective fieldwork provided that disturbing visits to nest sites are limited to those holding a licence. Sadly, that is presumably no longer a significant issue in Bowland as there are so few breeding peregrines and hen harriers. This issue of birdwatcher and raptor worker disturbance is raised time and time again by moorland interests and it’s important that such mischievous and erroneous concerns can be effectively rebutted. Licensing helps with that.
Wasn’t it the case that the NWRPG were never told why their licences were revoked, only that they would not be renewed because licences had already been issued to others?
If they were causing unnecessary disturbance as you allege – why give them licences to monitor raptors elsewhere?
I admire your stubbornness in the face of the evidence that ‘it did work well’. Remind me again how many peregrines and hen harriers are currently nesting in Bowland.
I think that it seems to those of us on the sidelines that the comment “Yes it did work well. It removed any possibility that moorland managers could point the finger at raptor workers …. as one of the causes of raptor declines” is the ornithological equivalent of the old medical joke that “The operation was successful, but the patient died.” Leaving aside whose account of the background to this event is accurate, what I cannot understand is why was it that when it was clear that the lack of monitoring by the North West Raptor Group was giving systematic persecution a free hand, monitoring wasn’t re-introduced. Not only introduced but done so with a good deal of publicity highlighting the sharp decline in their absence. At that stage, it would have been very difficult for grouse shooting interests to have blamed the NWRG for any decline since they were absent. It’s hard not to conclude that the desire not to have any egg on NE’s face trumped that of protecting raptors.
Ian, i am quite shocked by what you are saying.
How can it be ‘working well’ to lose all the raptors in Bowland in order to find out something that everyone with half a brain cell new already.
It might make sense if this was the trigger point for action, for the licensing or banning of driven grouse moors. If the powers that be, said ‘right, now we have fundamental proof that it is gamekeepers killing and suppressing Hen Harriers, lets just sort this out here and now’. If that were the case, that might, just might, make the sacrifice of several pairs of Hen Harriers and Peregrines worthwhile. But everyone know this is not the case. Firstly, which politicians in England give a damn, a handful? and none that are making the decisions. And secondly the grouse lobby just moves the excuses to another area. It is like the climate denial hydra.
Also i think it would be courteous to clear up once and for all exactly why these licences were withdrawn. I have been following this as an outsider and haven’t s clue. I thought that BTO was told by NE what to do.
Well written and important article. Another classic example of Natural England and UK Govt Policy ignoring basic science and bowing to pressure from ignorant land owners and the hunting lobby. Peter Hudson and I showed 20 years ago that hen harriers, peregrines and foxes do a great job of selectively removing grouse that are heavily infected with parasitic worms, this reduces the net parasite abundance in the grouse population and allows them to increase in abundance. When you persecute predators you effectively create a less healthy and less abundant grouse population. Similar things are seen with buzzards and sheep, remove buzzards and risk of scrapie goes up as sheep will go and gnaw on carcasses that have not been cleaned up by buzzards. Scrapie mainly occurs on soils poor in Calcium so sheep crave old bones as as source of calcium and inadvertently acquire scrapie. Similar processes operate with wolves, coyotes and chronic wasting disease in the Western US.
Estate owners would do much better to allow birds of prey and foxes on their land, they’re mainly removing sick birds, so the abundance of grouse would increase.
Presumably that works if shooters are prepared to accept “sustainable” grouse levels (which is what I would like to see) and not hammer the moors in every way as many are doing at the moment.
Btw, todays Robin Page badger article in the Times and the online comments show just how important it is that conservation should be based on sound science and not prejudice or sentiment.
If only shooters would switch from driven grouse shooting to the old traditional style of walking up, then Red Grouse would not have to be maintained at such unnaturally high population densities and there would be no motivation for the persecution of raptors and other predators.
Driven shooting is an opulent display of wealth. It became popular with 19th Century landowners to show off their wealth by proving that they could employ an army of gamekeepers to produce such unnaturally high levels of gamebirds. Shooting estates then competed with each other as to which could produce the largest bag of grouse shot.
It isn’t even a traditional British style of shooting.
Turning a blind eye is a heroic English tradition not to be confused with complicity.
Excellent article. I haven’t come across the author before but I would like to read a lot more of her writing. She has highlighted a terrible on-going issue eloquently and forcefully.
The point I felt obliged to make here is that, contrary to what is suggested in this guest blog, the licensing decisions that I was involved with in Bowland were not taken for any devious or sinister political reasons. If they had been politically motivated decisions forced onto staff by senior managers then I would be more than happy to say so but that was simply not the case. Rightly or wrongly, the decisions were taken with the best interests of the birds at heart. It has not worked out well for peregrines or hen harriers in Bowland but the same can be said for all the other areas dominated by grouse moors in northern England, including areas where raptor workers are well coordinated and difficult licensing decisions were not required.
Re SteB’s comment above – It’s fine for raptor workers to use Open Access for raptor monitoring. That may not apply to those working for NGOs or agencies but, for others, it is not a problem. Landowner permission is not needed.
Thanks for highlighting this Ian. It seems to be that the deciding issue is whether someone was being paid for this monitoring work, and I was mistaken that it was anyone doing monitoring work. Apparently the restriction is for commercial work.
Let’s be honest: if you had issued the existing group monitoring Bowland with drums and trumpets in 2010 and told them to play them 24/7 on the moors there, the outcome could hardly have been worse, could it?
Bowland was a prime site for hen harriers in England, Natural England didn’t just drop the ball there, they kicked it into the long grass too.
All,
My comment is strictly relating to access on ‘access land’ as defined under Section 2 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/section/2); and Schedule 2 (see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/schedule/2). Government guidance is available here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/open-access-land-management-rights-and-responsibilities; and here: https://www.gov.uk/right-of-way-open-access-land/use-your-right-to-roam).
There are no restrictions under this legislation to bird-watch (using the guidance’s parlance) and the law and guidance makes no distinction between ‘watching’, ‘monitoring’, ‘observing’ or any other term that could be applied in this context as I understand. What applies to private individuals will apply to NGOs, or indeed companies providing their works and activities are legal and comply with the legislation so far as I can understand.
The law relates only to England and Wales in the context of ‘right to roam’ and other realms within the UK may have similar legislation, or none at all. Scotland, as far as I know, has an absolute right to roam on any land except within the curtilage of buildings and their gardens where this is obvious (i.e. a fence or hedge) or within a defined distance, whichever is appropriate.
There is no requirement to inform or notify the landowner (who may not be the occupier) and I suspect it is illegal to request an individual or individuals to leave on open access land unless there is reason to believe that unlawful activities or those not permitted under the 2000 Act is taking place. Indeed, it is a specific offence (Section 14 of the 2000 Act) to deter the public from accessing the land.
There are means by which access land can be restricted, which from what I can understand, is for a period of no more than 28 days and CANNOT include Christmas Day, Good Friday or any bank holiday.
Grouse moors can only restrict access to persons with dogs (see Section 23(1)) and only for a limited period of time and must allow individuals without dogs continued access (see explanation note here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/notes/division/1/1/3/6). So, as far as I understand, grouse moor owners cannot restrict access to their land to individuals without dogs for any reason at any time.
Hope these specific comments are of interest.
Richard
A very forthright piece, giving a sense of barely controlled passion ,anger, and a great injustice in the authors writing.
I agree with Mr Carter, this is probably not the place for a ” detailed rehashing of all the old arguments”
but it ain’t going to get done anywhere else, Natural England has made that abundantly clear.
Throughout many years, I have been privy to almost “every single outrageous and fundamentally unfair event”. On many of these occasions, I have been in daily, sometimes hourly, contact with the North West Raptor Protection Group as events have unfolded. Nothing from Bowland can surprise me anymore.
My memory of certain key episodes however, would seem to put me at odds with Mr Carter’s and NE’s version of events.
I can vividly remember Terry informing me of bad practice, by certain license holders, at a time when he was still co-ordinator for Bowland. These included unnecessary visits to Hen Harrier nests, un -coordinated Peregrine disturbance (on this occasion Terry had to ask local police to stand down as the miscreants had been reported as nest robbers), an excessive amount of time at another eyrie, not to mention unwarranted attention paid to breeding Eagle Owls at a critical period.
As a result of this behaviour, Terry requested certain individuals be removed as agents on his license.
These are now part of the licensed team monitoring Bowland, and are frequently lauded for their dedication.
Honestly, you could not make it up, but we are talking about Bowland of course.
Natural England receive a lot of criticism for doing a difficult job, some of this is unwarranted as they are bound by decisions from a higher authority.
However I can honestly say, hand on heart , their treatment of the NWRPG has been based on purely political reasoning,the birds interests have played second fiddle.
At a time when ever more action is being openly advocated on various forums, and intense critiscism of estates and named individuals is commonplace, I find it very sad that such dedicated individuals should be so shabbily treated for showing others the way.
If we take Ian’s point at face value (and I see no reason not to), there had obviously been significant pressure from landowners and keepers suggesting disturbance, and hence the reduced raptor numbers, was all due to monitoring efforts. The licence revocation should have been public!y announced as an experiment. The game industry in Bowland (and elsewhere) continues to blame bird ‘botherers’. If they’d all been told at the time that the raptor group had had licences revoked for this reason, they may have been more circumspect and perhaps there’d still be breeding raptors present.
The ‘experiment’ can now be shown as a complete failure. Far from being in the birds’ best interest, it simply removed eyes on the ground. The keepers have had their chance, it’s now time to give the raptor group free rein, not just licences, but landowners should be compelled to allow cameras to be installed, and keepers shadowed (UU may be amenable even if Grosvenor isn’t). After another 5 years we may have some useful results from this shady decision.
And Ian – you may argue it wasn’t shady, but a lack of transparency makes it look decidedly dodgy when viewed, in retrospect, against the outcome. I’m sure decisions you were involved in may have been made in good faith at the time, but please stop trying to defend it as a success. The complete loss of raptors is a disgrace to all involved. Just don’t get me started on the NE licence decision on the Bowland gull cull.
I am puzzled about the cause-and-effect here. Why would the Raptor Protection Group need disturbance licences to watch nests? Why does the fact that they can’t get up close mean that suddenly the nests are more vulnerable to illegal persecution? Was it the Raptor Protection people who previously prevented persecution – or has it risen for a different reason?
This is exactly the point. The NWRPG can and presumably still do continue to monitor raptor nests from a safe distance without the need for a license. This is only likely to be linked to the decline of peregrine and hen harriers in Bowland if the group no longer monitors the birds as they are unable to ring them.
A very important and interesting blog. However, for me it and the resulting comments raise far more questions than answers, and I find the whole issue disturbing and unsatisfactory.
Were NE duplicitous, or just naïve and wrong-headed? What were the roles of UU and the RSPB? As an outsider, I would really like a more detailed account of the situation and its history. In one of his less well-known books, Graham Greene made the statement, ‘In battle, the most important thing is to know who is the Captain and who is the enemy.’ Here it does seem difficult to tell which side some people and organisations are really on, and I’d love to be better informed. Please don’t leave it like this.
The ongoing persecution of our birds of prey is very serious and is not disputed. Neither can it be disputed that there was a well-publicised dispute amongst raptor workers in Bowland – to the extent that a local raptor study group was expelled from the Northern England Raptor Forum. What is disputed is that these two matters are linked.
One group / individual is claiming, amongst other things, that a raptor group was deliberately targeted by a statutory nature conservation body and their licences withheld in order to cover up the extent of illegal killing. A very serious accusation. If you believe this theory, however, then somehow NERF, RSPB and the BTO are all complicit, as this was never a matter of NE versus one raptor study group.
If evidence of such corruption existed, do you really think the RSPB, BTO, NERF and licensed raptor workers wouldn’t use it to further raptor conservation? Do you really think the objective and independent BTO were somehow forced into removing licences in order to cover up wildlife crime and have since chosen to remain silent? Perhaps the Northern England Raptor Forum had their arms twisted by government in order to expel one of their unruly members, but have since decided to keep quiet? Were a bunch of stories concocted by civil servants and falsely attributed to RSPB staff, RSPB volunteers and other licensed raptor workers about their struggles to cooperate with members of another (dare I say rival) raptor group, yet none of them spoke out?
I don’t believe any one party was wholly responsible for the breakdown in relationships between different raptor workers in Bowland, but nevertheless this is what occurred. With a certain amount of irony, this state of affairs was no doubt compounded by to and fro arguments slagging each other off on various raptor blogs. Licences in Bowland continued to be issued to those raptor workers who were willing to cooperate, but not everyone was as willing to cooperate as others.
Ultimately, it is wildlife criminals who are responsible for the disappearance of Bowland’s birds of prey and not a licensing decision. A licence is not required to protect a nest site from persecution by observing from a safe distance. A licence is not required to report wildlife crime to the police. Licensed monitoring of hen harrier and peregrine nest sites in Bowland was not stopped during this period and RSPB staff, RSPB volunteers and other raptor workers continued to hold licences. I think this is still the case and monitoring is now continued by the new Bowland Raptor Study Group who are affiliated with NERF.
The decline of peregrines and harriers in Bowland is shocking and a tragedy, but this licensing matter is a side-show about territorial ornithologists and not territorial (or should that be semi-colonial) birds of prey. The evidence of illegal persecution is over-whelming and there is no need for it to be watered down by what, in my opinion, is just a conspiracy theory. It is also sad I feel compelled to respond to this matter, which should not detract from the decades’ worth of tireless effort some of these same individuals have contributed to the cause of Bowland’s birds of prey.
Aye-aye – thank you very much for that comment.
Thanks for that, Aye-aye.
Now i just have to find those forums.
https://raptorforum.wordpress.com/
Interestingly, NWRPG would be viewed by the law as still being a member of NERF, since NERF has no constitution or disciplinary procedures, and did not follow the course of natural justice in expelling NWRPG. I mention this because NERF’s behaviour should be seen as reflecting badly on them, and not the NWRPG.
There’s a useful set of guidelines at http://moderngov.newcastle-staffs.gov.uk/documents/s21492/GUIDANCE%20NOTES%20natural%20Justice.pdf – guess how many NERF broke? I still shake my head in disbelief when I look at the correspondence between them and NWRPG’s solicitor.
As an example of what happens when you ignore natural justice, some of you may recall what happened when Ed Ball sacked Haringey council’s children’s boss Sharon Shoesmith. She won a six-figure payout and costs, because “She was denied the elementary fairness which the law requires.”
Years after the event, Balls still didn’t get it. After all, it was only taxpayers’ money he was wasting… – https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/29/ed-balls-sharon-shoesmith-baby-p-sacking-payout
This has nothing to do with NWRPG losing their licence, it is simply down to the two main shooting estates changing their staff and policy in 2008, it took them two years to wipe out the entire harrier and peregrine populations. NWRPG just happened to lose their licence at the end of this process in 2010. There is nothing to stop NWRPG monitoring from a distance. How much time has Eleanor spent in Bowland, not much I suspect but given her blog I suspect she has spent a lot of time reading raptor politics. Write something we haven’t all heard before
You seem to have arranged the dates to suit your argument, perhaps you can show the figures for peregrine and hen harriers in Bowland over the period 2008 – 2012?
In 2009, twenty-nine peregrines were recorded as fledged from successful nesting sites throughout the Forest of Bowland, so the nose-dive in figures occurred from 2010 onwards as has been stated many times before – after NWRPG’ licence renewals were turned down.
[Note to Mark – sorry to be posting this, but Mik’s post needs to be challenged or the casual reader might think it’s a true and accurate record of what happened.]
I find Thorbjorn’s claims difficult to understand, because I have read above in one of Terry Pickford’s reply to Ian Carter where Terry asked Mr Carter to provide proof of any such unnecessary nest visits. I am unable to locate any reply from Mr Carter providing such proof Terry asked for, why not? Perhaps Thorbjorn can provide this important detail?