Dr Coffey’s reading list (12)

Dr Therese Coffey is the junior minister at Defra. When Gavin Gamble’s e-petition in favour of banning driven grouse shooting passes 10,000 signatures (and it stands at over 9800) then Dr Coffey will need to sign off a government response.  It looks to me as though ‘drafting a response’ will be in Dr Coffey’s civil servants’ in-tray on Monday morning.

In order that she does not make Defra look even more foolish than they do already I am providing a reading list for the minister to inform her response.

Please sign this e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting and put Dr Coffey on the spot.

 

Let’s just have a look at what people who really know about wildlife crime say about this issue – these are extracts from the call for evidence last year and which are on the parliament website (I have highlighted some passages in red):

1. Here are some extracts from the written evidence of Alan Stewart an ex police officer, ex wildlife crime officer, ex member of the National Wildlife Crime Unit and ex shooter;

• ‘the volume of wildlife crime I saw that was clearly committed in the name of game management astonished me’
• ‘The crimes I encountered or dealt with ranged from the killing by various means of golden eagles, white-tailed eagles, peregrines, red kites, goshawks, buzzards, ravens, badgers and otters to the illegal shooting of deer to reduce the tick burden on grouse. On one driven grouse moor all the deer were shot at night in a spotlight and the carcasses left on the hill. On another driven grouse moor the native trees beside hill burns were cut down to prevent the roosting or nesting of any birds that might predate grouse. Intelligence consistently showed that the worst areas were east and south-west Scotland and the north of England, all areas of driven grouse moors. Considering I was once part of the ‘shooting scene’ and used to shoot game this has completely sickened me.’
• ‘The regular discoveries of poisonous baits or their victims present a real risk of serious injury or even death to anyone encountering and touching them. Most are found on driven grouse moors and sooner or later will lead to a fatality. In Scotland in the last five years at least eight satellite-tagged golden eagles have ‘gone missing’ in areas of grouse moors. This, together with a considerable number of hen harriers that have also ‘gone missing’ in grouse moor areas in Scotland and the north of England, strongly indicates there is no let-up in criminality.’
• ‘Many landowners, sporting agents and gamekeepers on driven grouse moors … completely ignore the law’
• ‘ some of these estates running rings around the law’

 

2. Here is the summary of another very powerful piece of written evidence which was given anonymously:

• The shooting industry and its representatives should be removed from all positions of power where wildlife crime law enforcement policy are discussed or decided upon.
• Driven grouse moors should be rewilded.  This at a stroke, would remove the many very serious problems of driven grouse moors and provide real, significant, tangible benefits for the whole of society.
• Driven grouse moor management normally involves very high levels of wildlife crime as well as a range of very serious conservation issues.
• The illegal persecution of birds of prey in the UK has a very serious detrimental effect, especially on hen harrier and golden eagle populations.
• Raptor persecution should be treated as organised crime.
• Detection of wildlife crime on grouse shooting estates is currently ineffective.  Enforcement need to be far greater, with clear and strong backing from political leadership.  A dedicated Wildlife Crime Enforcement team should be set up comprising perhaps 10 officers for Scotland.  Employers and managers must be targeted for prosecution, not simply those actually undertaking the illegal killings
• Penalties for raptor killings should reflect the fact that these crimes are of a commercial nature.  Custodial sentences should be made routine for employers, managers and employees.  Financial penalties should be linked to the value of the business.
• The industry has consistently shown no will to reform itself, despite much help to that end for many years.
• There is practically no accountably to ensure that those managing driven grouse shooting estates adhere to lawful and decent environmental practise.
• It is clear that driven grouse shooting should be banned.  However, in the absence of such a ban, it is essential that vicarious liability and shoot registration are urgently required.
• Society is failing to get any benefit from the huge subsidies given to driven grouse shooting estates, indeed these monies are funding very serious environmental degradation.

And here are some quotes from it too:

• It is essential to understand that raptor persecution is committed on remote land that is normally free from potential witnesses and by individuals with an intimate knowledge of the land, often operating at night with high tech, essentially military, equipment.  The risk to them of detection is extremely low.  Around 100 confirmed incidents of raptor persecution are recorded each year.  It is not known what percentage of actual incidents this number accounts for, but I believe it will certainly be far, far less than 1%.  The RSPB has received multiple reports of in excess of 100 raptors being killed on individual shooting estates in one year.  Apart from the extremely low detection rate, of the confirmed incidents, the subsequent successful prosecution rate is less than 5%.  As such, the chances of an individual gamekeeper killing a raptor and actually being prosecuted for it are extremely low.  For every successful gamekeeper prosecution, I estimate that there will have been, very roughly, far, far more than 2000 other offences.  Having been convicted, it is likely that the employer will pay any fine, meaning that there is effectively no consequence for a gamekeeper illegally killing raptors or other legally protected wildlife.  [Only one gamekeeper ever, has received a custodial sentence for raptor killing in Scotland.  This is probably the one and only time ever, that a significant deterrent was handed down, and the only occasion where managers or owners were unable to protect their employees from the law.]  When gamekeepers are prosecuted in court, they are normally unusually well represented in court, often by QC’s, even for minor offences, by specialist defence firms.  Having been convicted of wildlife crimes, gamekeepers invariably retain their employment.  This arrangement allows managers and employers to remain very distant from the criminal actions of their staff.  If a gamekeeper was ever to give evidence against his employer or manager, he would have practically no chance of working as a gamekeeper ever again.  Gamekeepers coming forward publicly with information about raptor persecution would effectively make themselves unemployable.
• Whilst it is invariably gamekeepers committing the offences on grouse shooting estates, they are not the primary problem.  It is the shooting industry, the managers and employers of gamekeepers, who are the real problem and who create the environment for gamekeepers to operate in and who direct the widespread criminal practices taking place.  The desire to produce incredibly high, unnatural numbers of grouse for driven grouse shooting is the motivation for widespread illegal predator killing.  For many years, there has been numerous partnership working projects between conservationists and the shooting industry to find ways to enable this hobby to continue legally, but despite much help, there has never been any serious engagement from the shooting industry and the illegal killings continue.  If the driven grouse shooting industry was serious about tackling problems like raptor persecution it could easily do so very quickly.  It is essential to fully comprehend that this will never happen without serious and meaningful governmental action.
• I have absolutely no doubt that any voluntary approach or code of conduct will never be effective.  It is clear a robust and enforceable legal framework, backed up with the resources for rigorous enforcement, is needed to ensure the environment is properly protected.
• It appears that sometimes employers/managers may be aware that their gamekeepers are illegally killing raptors, but ignore it.  On others estates, it appears that gamekeepers are given explicit instructions to illegally kill raptors and are given specialist equipment to that end.  Some estates spend vast sums of money supplying specialist equipment, firearms, night-sights, thermal imaging sights, illegal poisons, to enable their gamekeepers to commit crimes and avoid detection.

 

3. More powerful evidence from Guy Shorrock, former police officer and long-serving RSPB Investigations team member; here are some quotes:

• The phenomenal response to the e-petition, on what many would consider a niche subject, is indicative of the increasing public concern about grouse moor management and the wide ranging environmental implications.  Based on a significant volume of evidence, it is entirely understandable that so many are calling for a ban on the most intensive form of driven grouse shooting.  I believe it is essential that the government takes some form of substantial action to recognise these concerns.  This has to include statutory regulatory mechanisms.  I personally believe the key word in this entire debate is ‘accountability’, or more accurately the lack of it, in relation to individuals who run and manage grouse shooting estates.  Until this is addressed, I believe there is absolutely no chance of a significant change in the serious environmental problems associated with grouse moor management.  Consequently, it is abundantly clear that, at the very least, the law on grouse shooting has to be significantly changed to bring accountability to the management of these large upland areas.
• The National Crime Agency (NCA) define organised crime as ‘serious crime planned, coordinated and conducted by people working together on a continuing basis. Their motivation is often, but not always, financial gain. Organised criminals working together for a particular criminal activity or activities are called an organised crime group’.  The current levels of raptor persecution on driven grouse moor estates should be classed as organised crime.
• It is essential to understand that crimes like raptor persecution are being committed in private and remote places by individuals with an intimate knowledge of the land, often operating on the edge of darkness.  The risks of detection to those involved are extremely low and this type of criminality is almost un-policable.  The UK government and the RSPB are typically recording around 100 confirmed incidents of raptor persecution each year (typically shooting, trapping, poisoning and nest destruction).  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%.  Consequently, the chances of an individual gamekeeper committing a raptor persecution offence and actually being prosecuted are incredibly low, and they are fully aware of this.
• It is my unshakeable belief that it is the shooting industry itself, the managers and employers of gamekeepers, who are at the fundamental root of this problem.  It is the employers and managers who create the environment for these people to operate within and are ultimately orchestrating the widespread illegal environmental practices taking place.  The desire to produce incredibly high artificial numbers of birds for driven grouse shooting will continue to provide the motivation for widespread illegal predator control.
• I have had a number of conversations with gamekeepers and others within the industry which have been eye-opening and extremely disturbing.  It is widely accepted by these people that the vast majority of driven grouse shooting estates are involved in some level of raptor persecution, though the scale of this can vary significantly.  At the very worst end of the scale, some estates are reportedly killing in excess of 200 raptors per year, akin to the horrific accounts traditionally linked to the Victorian period.
• I am aware of one individual who has been involved in grouse moor management for many years.  Based on a huge amount of information, I believe this individual is one of the very top wildlife criminals in the UK, and managing gamekeepers who are responsible for the death of literally thousands of raptors and other protected wildlife during the last two decades or more.  However, the reality is that this individual has never even been in a police station for an interview let alone anywhere near a court. It seems this individual, and much of the industry they are part of, consider, and with good reason, that they are pretty much untouchable.
• Based on my experience in this area, I have absolutely no doubt that any voluntary approach or code of conduct will never be effective.  It is clear a robust and enforceable legal framework is needed to ensure the environment is properly protected.

 

 

 

 

Please sign this e-petition to ban driven grouse shooting and put Dr Coffey on the spot.

 

The government response should:

• be published within 2 weeks of Gavin Gamble’s e-petition reaching 10,000 signatures
• announce that vicarious liability for wildlife crimes will be introduced in England because of the unacceptably high levels of wildlife crime
• announce that Defra will ask the RSPB to come forward with proposals for licensing of shooting estates within a month and that Defra will respond to them by Christmas
• acknowledge the level of concern about driven grouse shooting which led to 123,077 signatures being gained last year for an absolute ban on this hobby (I’m not expecting Dr Coffey to say anything nicer than that about a ban)
• confirm that Defra is looking at removal of farming subsidies from grouse moors in its post-Brexit agricultural strategy
• confirm that the evidence for wider environmental damage of heather burning has increased recently and that this is an issue that government will address and that this will require widespread changes to grouse moor management (burning and draining)
• mention where the government is with dealing with the RSPB complaint to the EU over unsustainable moorland management due to grouse shooting practices
• acknowledge that the plight of the Hen Harrier has not improved in two breeding seasons since the Defra Hen Harrier plan was launched and that the grouse shooting industry has not cleaned up its act and is on a last warning
• announce that the details of the 15-year Natural England Hen Harrier study will be published by Christmas 2017 in a government report with further recommendations for Hen Harrier conservation
• acknowledge that wildlife crime applies to many other protected species other than the Hen Harrier
• announce that the National Capital Committee has been asked to compile a report on ecosystem services and grouse moor management
• announce a review of the economic costs and benefits of intensive grouse moor management will be carried out by independent academics and published by Christmas 2018.

 

 

The government response should not:

• say that funding of the NWCU is a sufficient response to combatting bird of prey persecution in the uplands (because nobody who knows has ever suggested such a thing)
• say or suggest that grouse shooting provides a nett economic benefit to the nation (because there are no such figures)
• suggest that the current Hen Harrier Action Plan is remotely fit for purpose
• praise gamekeepers
• conflate benefits of all shooting (economic or environmental) with benefits of grouse shooting (because it makes the government department and/or its ministers look either stupid or biased)

[registration_form]