This is the sixth Defra response to an e-petition attempting to press them into action on wildlife crime and unsustainable upland management associated with grouse shooting. And this is the sixth response in Defra which has failed to admit the scale of the problem of wildlife crime and failed to bring forward any sensible response.
These were the other five occasions:
- Chrissie Harper’s 2011/12 e-petition (10,908 signatures) calling for vicarious liability for wildlife crimes
- John Armitage’s 2013/14 e-petition (10,429 signatures) in favour of licensing of upland shooting estates
- my first, 2014/15, e-petition (22,399 signatures) in favour of banning driven grouse shooting
- my second 2015/16 e-petition (33,655 signatures) in favour of banning driven grouse shooting
- my third 2016 e-petition (123,077 signatures) in favour of banning driven grouse shooting
Defra, under a series of Secretaries of State and a series of junior ministers has failed to face up to the scale of wildlife crime. Therese Coffey and Michael Gove have blown their opportunity to move things on by repeating the mistake of their predecessors and failing to acknowledge the problem and failing to act to solve it. How can environment ministers expect us to believe that they are environmentalists when they fail to act against those who flagrantly break environmental laws?
Defra knows that there is massive wildlife crime in the uplands of England (see raptorpersecutionuk every week!) and so does everybody else (see quotes below) but only Defra has the power to act to stop it – and they aren’t. An environment department that turns a blind eye to environmental crimes? Defra is soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime.
Here is what everybody else is saying about wildlife crime:
BASC: ‘All of us need to realise that the killing of raptors is doing us no favours. It risks terminal damage to the sport we love‘
Yorkshire Dales NP: ‘I am appalled by the continuing illegal persecution and attempted persecution of protected birds in the Yorkshire Dales National Park. Birds of prey should be thriving here. That they are not, as the RSPB’s ‘Birdcrime’ report rightly makes clear, is a serious stain on the Park’s reputation – and on all those involved in moorland management.‘
Nidderdale AONB ‘The continuing persecution of birds of prey in the AONB is outrageous. It is a stain on our reputation as a nationally-protected landscape in which wildlife – including birds of prey like buzzards, red kites, hen harriers and peregrine falcons – is part and parcel of what makes Nidderdale such an amazing place to be. We unreservedly condemn illegal persecution of birds of prey. It is starting to have a damaging effect on tourism businesses’
Forest of Bowland AONB ‘It is particularly concerning to the Committee that these acts of illegal persecution continue; badly affecting the populations of birds of prey that are synonymous with the Forest of Bowland. These acts undoubtedly have an impact on the reputation of Bowland as an ‘Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty’. The Committee unreservedly condemns all illegal persecution of birds of prey.’
Peak District National Park ‘Being able to watch birds of prey in the Peak District National Park should be part of everyone’s experience. We have been working with landowners, gamekeepers and partners since 2011 to remedy the situation locally but it is clear from the results that much more needs to be done. This year peregrines have failed to breed in the Dark Peak for the first time since they recolonised in 1984 and persecution of these incredible birds has been a factor in this. This has to change‘.
RSPB ‘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 … Of particular concern are raptors targeted in the uplands, especially on land managed for driven grouse shooting.’
BirdLife International ‘While the problem is widespread, it is particularly acute in areas associated with driven grouse shooting in the north of England and large parts of Scotland. Over a fifteen-year period (2000-2014) the five worst sites for the largest number of confirmed incidents were the Angus Glens in the north east of Scotland, the Peak District in the north of England, South Lanarkshire and the Scottish Borders in the south of Scotland, and Aberfeldy in the north of Scotland.’ and ‘a higher standard of statutory enforcement and prevention are required’ and ‘Existing sanctions have very limited deterrent effect, with high levels of recidivism and a lack of acountability for landowners and managers whose staff commit offences.’ and ‘Regulatory interventions are required, including the introduction of a robust licensing system capable of governing driven grouse shooting. This should be supported by a statutory code of practice, including a requirement to submit bag returns. Legislation in Scotland which has introduced ‘vicarious liability’, as a measure to increase accountability for the actions of staff working on estates should be extended to the rest of the UK. There also needs to be increased investment in monitoring, such as the use of satellite tagging, and improved recording of raptor persecution, and enforcement.’.
To summarise; shooting organisations admit that they have a bunch of criminals in their memberships whom, they can’t control, National Parks and AONBs in the ‘Defra family’ say that wildlife crime from the shooting industry is a problem on the ground which is affecting the local economy and nature conservationists say that we need a stronger regulatory response to tackle this criminality.
But the minister and Secretary of State responsible for these matters say nothing at all about a new approach which would be fit for purpose.
Everyone’s talking about wildlife crime except those who are responsible for dealing with it.
So, what should we all do? More on this, this evening.
[registration_form]
There are many people working hard to use the appropriate channels to persuade those in power to make changes and ultimately this must be the way forward. However, I am beginning to wonder if a more direct approach may be needed, if only to allay the frustration of having to watch the deliberate delaying tactics of those with vested interests.
Bob – what did you have in mind?
Legal direct action would appear to be an option if those in power close their ears to the evidence and fail to discharge their responsibilities.
Exactly that. A regular and possibly organised presence on the moors, perhaps focused on those areas of most concern for persecution. Anything illegal would defeat the object.
One of the reasons that the poorly conceived DEFRA Hen Harrier plan is going to fail is that the MA et al have currently got what they want, no Hen Harriers breeding on grouse moors and whilst I’m sure there will eventually be some token nests, what we want will not happen. Of course the darkest of the dark side are still killing birds in winter unabated to keep the population low.
The same is true of PAW RPPDG, packed with folk from the game lobby, that is one of the problems they are lobbyists not delivery organisations and they obfuscate and delay rather than getting on with proper business.
The same is true of SSSI management plans on moorland and SPAs.
Why is this? Well DEFRA believe them and offer the carrot, BUT THERE IS NO STICK!
That is what is needed sanctions for failure, not doing the right thing or playing straight at PAW. the NERF statement included in their assessment of the DEFRA HH plan says it all for PAW
In relation to Hen Harrier persecution it is clear that the greatest potential source of information is to be found from within the shooting industry. NERF expects the representatives of the industry to work tirelessly with their members to assist both local Police Forces and the NWCU to build the intelligence picture and assist with prosecuting offenders when they are put before the courts.
NERF proposes that members of the RPPDG who cannot demonstrate compliance with this action should forfeit their position on the Group.
As to the Harrier plan inadequate though it is the sanctions should be licensing of estates and keepers, vicarious liability and withdrawal of the general licence provisions from criminal estates.
Failure to manage land properly withdraw subsidies and the right to burn at all.
Penalties for not doing the “right”thing should help to concentrate the mind.
Paul – quite right, well said.
Thank you for banging on about this Mark. The response from Defra is disingenuous in the extreme. A classic case of meaningless waffle to cover up the fact that they intend to do nothing.
As I said before, the solution to starting to address this problem is very simple. It is an approach which would have an enormous direct impact on reducing the illegal persecution of raptors. It is an approach that governments, especially this government uses all the time.
1) To order the police and other agencies to prioritize this as it’s got out of hand and to make a concerted effort to clamp down on it. Along with providing resources for this clamp down.
2) To increase police and other agency powers to be able to investigate and to use surveillance on what are vast areas of private land.
3) To increase punishments. There should be an automatic prison sentence, and quite a substantial one – say several years. It is a very culpable crime i.e. those doing it are setting out to do it in a very calculated and planned way. These are not people deeply involved in many types of criminal activity used to taking risks and getting caught. These crimes are being committed by people who would never do this if they thought there was a real chance of getting caught and having to spend several years in prison.
4) These prison sentences could be reduced if those caught cooperated and named others involved. This has been an approach the authorities have used for a long time to tackle organized crime.
None of this is new. Think how this governments deal the looting riots.
This approach is more than justified. The shooting industry has had decades to put their house in order and to clamp down on this practise by self-regulation. Instead of taking this opportunity they’ve stepped it up and become emboldened by how they get away with it. On managed grouse moors often virtually all raptors have disappeared. Think how in the last 10 years nesting Peregrines have just about disappeared from the Forest of Bowland, when before there were many. Yet by no coincidence Peregrine nests thrive outside the boundaries of the managed grouse shoots. The circumstantial evidence says this very orchestrated and persistent persecution across wide areas.
We are being treated as if we are stupid and our intelligence is being insulted. All this disingenuous waffle about working with interested parties ridiculously assumes that it is some great mystery why these raptors are disappearing from grouse moors, and there is some sort of mystery about who is killing the raptors recovered. And remember, the dead raptors recovered, and the ones with satellite tags which disappear are just the tip of the iceberg. There are many times the raptors being killed than the cases we have evidence for.