Dr Coffey’s reading list (14) – RSPB Birdcrime report published

Mark 50 Comments
Therese Coffey

Dr Therese Coffey is the junior minister at Defra. Now that Gavin Gamble’s e-petition in favour of banning driven grouse shooting has passed 10,000 signatures Dr Coffey will need to sign off a government response.

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.

 

In the latest issue of the annual RSPB Birdcrime report the message is pretty clear for Dr Coffey – Defra cannot continue to ignore the scale of wildlife crime affecting raptors and must act. This is what the RSPB calls for:

 

‘The RSPB believes the UK government must do more to tackle raptor persecution. Our suggestions are:

– Introduce a system of licensing for driven grouse shooting. Self-regulation has been given a chance but is not working. Therefore we propose introducing a fair set of rules in the form of a licensing system and code of practice, underpinned by law, to ensure shoots are operating legally and sustainably. This would also provide an effective deterrent to criminal activity, including loss of a licence to shoot in the most serious cases.

– Protect wildlife law during UK negotiations with the EU to ensure that in the future the UK can take a leading role in the fight against wildlife crime, both at home and internationally.

– Make full use of existing powers to clamp down on raptor persecution, and make better use of tools like cross-compliance, ensuring public money is delivering healthy raptor populations, as society expects.

– Ensure shoot owners and managers can be held accountable for the actions of their gamekeepers by extending the vicarious liability legislation employed in Scotland to the rest of the UK.

– Publish information on Scottish cases sooner. Several confirmed raptor persecution incidents that occurred in 2016 are yet to be made public, along with some case details from previous years. We believe there is a duty for this information to be publicised in a timely manner to ensure transparency and awareness, and to maximise opportunities for tackling the issues. While we accept that details of wildlife crime cases may need to be withheld during the initial stages of an investigation, we argue that there are very few examples of other crimes being kept secret for extended periods of time.

– Invest in effective enforcement to uphold the laws protecting iconic wildlife and places. The RSPB believes the overall standard of enforcement to tackle raptor persecution needs to be significantly improved. Police forces should look to adopt good practice and take advantage of partnership working with specialist agencies.

– Fully investigate the disappearance of satellite tagged raptors. Over the past decade Natural England has tagged a considerable number of hen harriers, some of which have been found shot. We would like the data independently reviewed and the results published, in particular detailing the use of the land on which birds have vanished.

In 2017 we welcomed the decision by the Scottish government to form an independent panel to review the environmental impact of grouse moor management and options for regulation.’.

There is a focus on driven grouse shooting.  This is from the foreword:

‘In the UK we have a major issue with birds of prey being deliberately and illegally killed, despite full legal protection. This type of crime has serious consequences for the conservation status of species such as the hen harrier and golden eagle. Birdcrime 2016 focuses on this issue.

Of particular concern are raptors targeted in the uplands, especially on land managed for driven grouse shooting. Many raptor persecution crimes go undetected and unreported – the incidents we know about are just the tip of the iceberg.’.

So Dr Coffey, you cannot sit still and do nothing – can you?

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

[registration_form]

50 Replies to “Dr Coffey’s reading list (14) – RSPB Birdcrime report published”

  1. At the Westminster debate on the protection of the curlew on 17th October Dr Coffey was in agreement with the statement by Andrew Gilruth of GWCT that raptor control is essential to protect this species. There is a hidden agenda here.

  2. Is that the same Birdcrime report that states:

    ‘The views expressed in Birdcrime are not necessarily those of the
    RSPB or PAW.’

    ‘However, the figures in Birdcrime may vary from other published reports, because data sets compiled for different purposes, using very different methods, are unlikely to be directly comparable. Consequently, there will be some variation in how incidents are recorded, assessed and categorised.’

    Has the Birdcrime report been independently reviewed, ever?

      1. I have read a series of these ‘Birdcrime’ reports and can find no evidence of any review process whatsoever, only caveats indicating that no-one, including the rspb, will stand behind the views expressed in the reports.

        I see no primary source autopsy evidence stating that any raptors have definitively been illegally killed by shooting.

        I note from the latest ‘Birdcrime’ report:

        ‘For the first time in over three decades there were no raptor persecution-related prosecutions in 2016.’

          1. Of course they are, so that any legislation is, most importantly, backed by high quality, balanced, research:

            ‘The journal is not intended as a forum for articles presenting policy or strategy analysis or those highly driven by opinion, but instead will publish empirical and theoretical papers, letters to the Editor and invited visionary pieces by leading experts in the field, which have a strong base in behavioral science research.’

            ‘All articles in this journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening and anonymized refereeing by at least two independent referees.’

            http://www.societyforterrorismresearch.org/str-journal

          2. Tim – not what I see on the news every now and again. you are talking nonsense and you probably know it.

          4. Tim – you are wandering all over the place again. I see the moaning has started again even though I publish so much absolute nonsense from you.

        2. ‘I see no primary source autopsy evidence stating that any raptors have definitively been illegally killed by shooting.’
          You have just earned the ostrich of the year award, a hole is in the post.

          2. That would, presumably, be the empty hole reserved for autopsy evidence stating that any raptors have definitively been illegally killed by shooting.

            My point is not that illegal killing of raptors does not take place; of course it does and the perpetrators deserve the full force of the law; my point is simply that it is just plain silly to expect legislation without high standards of evidence.

            How many raptor persecution-related prosecutions were there in 2016?

            We have evidence of the main threats to hen harriers, for example, and they have nothing to do with illegal killing:

            [repetitive text removed by Mark]

          5. Sorry i’m having computer problems and rushed. I see one goalpost still stands
            ‘I see no primary source autopsy evidence stating that any raptors have definitively been illegally killed by shooting.’

            So come on then. I take the bait. I suppose, as someone once wrote on RPUK someone is going around catching birds of prey. Making little holes and pushing shards and whole shotgun pellets in the wounds and somehow managing to fracture the leg in the same spot. Then they must somehow kill or severely injure the bird in some other undetectable way. In on this conspiracy are all the vets e.g. Jean Thorpe who has to try to save those that manage to survive.
            But i’m really dying to learn how the police have also managed to get fooled by this dastardly deed.
            And all to tarnish the perfectly clear karmic record of the landowners and their henchmen. Who ever knew what MI5 get up to in their holidays.
            Wonder what William of Ockham would have to say on the matter.

          6. If the autopsies cannot definitively state that the birds were illegally killed by shooting……..then it is factually incorrect to state that the birds have definitely been illegally killed by shooting.

    2. Tim – It’s an annual report so you wouldn’t expect it to be peer-reviewed would you? If you are interested in peer-reviewed science relating to raptor persecution in the UK there is no shortage of it.

      1. I am interested. I would be most grateful for any references to peer-reviewed primary source science relating to raptor persecution in the UK within the last ten years.

        1. Tim – I’m not going to list them all here. It would take too long and take up too much space. Just use Google Scholar and type in ‘raptor persecution United Kingdom’. Or you can search species by species – Peregrine, Hen Harrier, Sea Eagle, Red Kite and others are all the subject of peer-reviewed papers in respected journals. If you should have any problems then shout but it’s not difficult. When you’ve done this, it would be great to hear what you think of them.

          1. Personally, I’m not desperately keen to hear what TB has to say about the published science.
            Scientists generally read papers to improve their understanding of a topic. They work hard to assimilate the main points of the new material and to integrate it with previously published work and what is known about the general biology of the species/issues involved.
            Judging from his contributions here, TB reads papers in the hope of finding sentences and phrases that, when taken out of context, can be used to obfuscate and confuse the overall picture, in the hope that general readers will not have the time and energy to study the original work and evaluate its true significance.
            It’s the classic ‘merchants of doubt’ approach, pioneered by other industries worried that people might be close to getting the right idea.

          2. The fact of the matter is that no-one here is interested in the real evidence, best summed up by someone who really does know what he is talking about, after 16 years studying hen harriers:

            ‘Social media is currently alive with debate about the threats facing Hen Harriers, almost exclusively targeted at gamekeepers and estates. There are no human threats to Hen Harriers on Skye. The threats are natural and the weather may also be a factor. Whilst there are threats elsewhere on grouse moors, Hen Harriers have bred in many areas in the west of Scotland not managed for shooting, and here their breeding success can be very mixed. Sometimes I wish the cyberspace experts would get off their arses and spend some time in the field. They might then appreciate that the problem is rather more complex.’

            A birding guide to the Isle of Skye

          4. Thanks, Ian. I would like to reply in detail but the censoring of my posts has started up again, as it always does when the case for banning grouse shooting begins to look a bit threadbare.

            Anyway, a brief response re evidence so far presented to parliament, recently referred to in this blog:

            1. Dr Ruth Tingay’s written evidence to parliament:

            This evidence relies on Dr Tingay’s co-authored non reviewed paper commissioned and published by the league against cruel sports. That paper references the rspb’s non reviewed birdcrime reports, which even the rspb itself does not stand behind.

            http://www.andywightman.com/docs/LACS_Grouse_Report_2015.pdf

            That evidence is therefore extremely partial, is not peer reviewed and so not to be relied upon, in my view.

            2. Dr Arjun Amar’s written evidence to parliament. This evidence, regarding peregrines, relies on a co-authored paper that has been peer reviewed. However it uses data gathered between 1980 and 2006.

            http://raptorpolitics.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Amar-et-al-Biol-Cons-Peregrine-paper-Final-Online-Version-1.pdf

            Even the rspb ‘Birdcrime’ paper notes that there were no prosecutions for any raptor persecution in 2016

            Dr Amar’s evidence conflicts with that of the BTO who make clear that peregrine populations are doing poorly across uplands generally and not specifically across those used for grouse shooting (although the BTO singles out North East Scotland grouse moors for specific criticism).

            His evidence regarding the effect of raptors on upland bird populations is also rather narrow in scope. The BTO is rather more forthright:

            ‘It did, however, remain plausible that the failure to effectively control predators could have contributed to the failure to increase breeding bird populations.’

            So, who to believe?

            This blog also refers to Dr Avery’s book ‘Inglorious’. The BTO reviewed that book and described it as partial.

            So I do not think much of the evidence so far presented on this blog.

          6. The remarks censored contained evidence of disastrous hen harrier breeding results, as a consequence of predation, on the Isle of Skye 2015, 2016 but excellent news for this year, with a tip for everyone to avoid walking up to hen harrier nests because that leads the foxes straight to them.

            I have no idea why a useful tip like that would have been censored on a blog purporting to be all about conservation.

        2. I think you should do your own research on this Tim Bidie. A good starting place might be a book like Ian Newton’s Bird Populations (or any other of his books). There are 56 pages of references covering the whole subject of the book with many relating to raptor persecution. Most of these are within well known scientific, peer reviewed, journals.

        3. i suppose the fact that raptors have lived on grouse moors for millenia and now cannot survive on them is not evidence of persecution. You might be able to buy MPs Tim but you cannot hide the truth.

          1. The truth of the matter is that they cannot thrive on any upland areas at the moment.

            ‘Overall, the survey provides a strong message that Peregrines are faring better in urban and other lowland situations than in the uplands. It is likely that there are multiple reasons for this difference, and that relative importance of these reasons varies between different areas. The study by the North-east Raptor Study Group provides compelling evidence that single biggest reason for decline of upland Peregrines in this region is persecution associated with grouse moor management. In upland areas where this land use type is less prevalent, however, other factors such as food supply, bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals, and intra-guild interactions with other raptors could all be playing a role in suppressing Peregrine numbers.’

            https://www.bto.org/volunteer-surveys/peregrine-survey/results

        4. You really don’t get it do you Tim. If in the Birdcrime report it says shot, trapped or poisoned there is an X ray, analysis and evidence accepted by the police. Don’t try to be an obfuscating smart arse on this side of the fence the CA are known for good reason as the Countryside Areliars.

          1. There is plenty of name calling on both sides of the debate, which contributes precisely nothing.

            That the Police may (or may not) be persuaded by evidence is beside the point.

            Evidence has to stand up in a court of law, which, according to ‘Birdcrime’ reports, regarding raptors in 2016, it did not at all.

  3. It is good that there is an increasing focus on driven grouse shooting and raptor persecution. Reading the news report of this RSPB press release on the BBC, I was staggered to read the following: The Countryside Alliance said there was no need for further legislation as there was no proof it would work.”We can work together to stamp out wildlife crime,” a spokesman added. I had to read this 3 times just to be sure I had read it correctly. Also another gem was the quote by Inspector Jon Grainge of the North Yorkshire Police “We recognise the issue of raptor persecution within North Yorkshire, and are actively working closely with the RSPB, our National Parks, and other agencies, including the Moorland Association towards combating this problem.” Are the Moorland Association changing tack too?
    In the end it is clear the higher media attention to raptor persecution and particularly to driven grouse shooting, is most welcome in raising public awareness of the problems our birds of prey are facing.

    1. My own (cynical) view is that the various shooting and landowning organisations have never had any difficulty in saying all the right things about wildlife crime.
      But doing the right things is an entirely different matter.

  4. Mark,I find it incredible that a great organisation like the RSPB would take such a soft stance on what is happening to Raptors on Grouse Moors.
    Is it possible that they are being persuaded by Government or others somehow that grants or work they get rewarded for will not happen unless they toe the line that is laid down for them?
    I feel there just has to be a reason that somehow puts them in an impossible position.

    1. The reason is that they are guardians of other people’s money. That money clearly would be best spent on remedying the main threats to raptors:

      [repetitive, irrelevant text removed by Mark]

      1. Indeed it would Tim and if you took the bloody blinkers off and actually listened to people who have years and years of experience studying raptors in our uplands ( no not the isle of Skye) you would know that we have nothing to gain if we tell anything but the truth and the truth is the main threat to birds of prey in most of our uplands is persecution by game interests.
        I myself found and reported to the police a dead red kite, one of many found in this are over the years. it was on a grouse moor with a small rabbit bait both laced full of carbofuran and isophenfos are you calling me, the policeman who collected it, or the VLA who did the autopsy or the WIIS liars? All raptors found to have been shot are killed illegally do you not understand!
        That government don’t do anything is because they are sympathetic to the landowners and shooters , some are shooters themselves, in other countries we call it vested interest corruption.

        1. Why not let the British Trust for Ornithology have the final word?

          ‘John Calladine of BTO Scotland, with collaborators from ADAS UK and the former Scottish Coal, has just reported on a ten-year monitoring programme set up to examine the effectiveness of moorland management in south-west Scotland.’

          ‘….More relevant, however, was that declines in bird populations were common across species with different habitat associations and so a causal relationship with the land management changes appeared unlikely. Similarly, an effect of disturbance seemed unlikely. It did, however, remain plausible that the failure to effectively control predators could have contributed to the failure to increase breeding bird populations.’

          ‘…. It raises the question of whether moorland bird conservation can be effective where breeding birds remain vulnerable to predation, and in so doing will contribute towards the wider debate on the future of the British uplands.’

          BTO

          1. Tim – no the public will have the final word. Read today’s Times? See my most recent blog today.

          3. The remark censored indicated that nature would have, is already having, the final say, to the great detriment of our upland bird populations and to the shame of those who would remove predator control from our uplands by banning grouse shooting.

            I have no idea why such a statement, backed by a 10 year survey published by the BTO, would be censored.

  5. I was just wondering how Tim Bidie was getting on with his Google Scholar reading, as recommended by Ian Carter? Although there is quite a lot to get through so perhaps he’s busy.

    If he finds Google Scholar difficult he can find 12 pages of references to peer-reviewed science at the back of Mark’s book Inglorious, detailing the many, many studies all reporting the same thing. Bird of Prey persecution continues to limit the number and distribution of raptors in the UK.

    But something tells me nothing will convince Tim. To adapt an old phrase, you can always tell a shooting man, but you can’t tell him much.

    1. You are absolutely correct. I cannot tell them much because my remarks keep getting censored.

      I would love to respond in more detail but any response would never get past the censors!

  6. There is a good post on Raptor Politics right now, concerning Westminster estates, both here and in Spain.
    I only mention it because opinion is divided, over whether or not anybody visits that site anymore, and i would hate the piece to go unread.

Comments are closed.