The RSPB has pulled out of the failed Peak District Bird of Prey Initiative – well done, a bit slow, but good for them. It’s interesting that this closely followed the publication on the RPUK blog of the intended press release about the failure of the project over recent years and the publication of an email from the Moorland Association refusing to sign up to a joint statement.
It has taken over seven weeks for the details behind the Peak District Hush-up to come into the public domain and for the RSPB then to dump the failed ‘initiative’. And note that the National Trust knew about all this stuff when they announced their decision to keep various forms of grouse shooting on their land.
‘If we let the hen harrier in, we will soon have nothing else. That is why we need this brood management plan’ – Amanda Anderson, Director, Moorland Association
And yet statutory bodies and government agencies, and perhaps even government ministers themselves, are dancing to the Moorland Association tune. It’s a mad world. But you can help change it by speaking up and asking for change.
I’ve signed both of these petitions which call for change in grouse shooting:
Gavin Gamble’s e-petition calling for a ban of driven grouse shooting
and
Ed Hutchings’s e-petition calling for licensing.
[registration_form]
And note that the National Trust …is that a rebuke, Mark?
Richard – well spotted. Sentence now finished. Sorry.
I was accused of being critical of the RSPB (which I was) rather than the Government yesterday. After 40+ years of membership and numerous donations to appeals I felt entitled to. But today it seems like the people at the top of the charity are starting to wake up and show some backbone on behalf of birds. Promoting the DGS Licensing petition more robustly, leaving the failed Peak Bird of Prey Initiative, leaving the brood meddling scheme last year, and the guest blog here yesterday all make me feel I may even rejoin again after leaving in disgust.
Incidentally, have you seen Luke Steele’s guest blog for League against Cruel Sports?
Maybe the tide is turning after all. Well done Mark, RSPB, LACS, RPUK, NWRPG, BAWC.
Mark, I think you have a truncated sentence in the blog: “And note that the National Trust….” I presume you were going to finish it with “yet again fail to stand up for the wildlife they have such a responsibility towards.”
Simon – well spotted. Sentence now finished. Sorry.
All lands held by members of the Moorland Association should be nationalised, in my opinion.
MA may only have one member of staff and an undisclosed membership, but one might ponder the financial status of those members? It is not a charity but a registered company limited by guarantee (No. 8977402).
The National Trust is a registered charity, which some might offer ran an interesting AGM in 2017? How many members remained loyal for the cheap car parking, how many walked away and transferred their allegiance to organisations not bending their knees or doffing their caps?
The RSPB have eventually seen the light (ok, now I’m being charitable) and that is good as it will help the critical mass continue to build, social media cannot be managed like the MSM so we keep going, keep writing letters etc. We all have a role to play and we knew it would be a long haul.
First we were ignored, then they laughed, ‘now’ they fight (think we’re at this point) and on the horizon …. the victory?
A toast, to Mark, to RPUK, to the raptor workers, to the celebrities who as a consequence of support for legislative compliance receive abuse THANK YOU
Has anyone got a copy of the MA articles of association….. just wondering if what they do is the same as what they are supposed to do?
Credit to the RSPB for a step in the right direction. Maybe the National Trust will eventually follow this lead? I’d like to think this decision is evidence of a greater inclination to listen from the RSPB, If so, I’m sure the comments on Kevin Cox’s blog will have provided plenty of food for thought.
I’m full of admiration for the Investigative branch of the RSPB who must have awful headaches from all the brick walls they have to bang their heads against! Hope they get even more support.
Mairi,may surprise all my critics but I feel exactly the same and also for those on reserves etc.
However I do not see why I should not be critical of some at RSPB when as farmers we always had to grin and bear it when they regularly waded in being critical of farmers just to improve what they see as their position and use it to get more members.When it suited them to be nice for a change they would call on farmers for Cirl Bunting help and Cranes etc.Mealy mouthed when it suits them.
A forthright and welcome statement from RSPB. A step in the right direction but we still need conservation bodies, the National Trust and National Parks to publicly condemn grouse shooting. The collective silence means that the criminality continues.
Excellent second paragraph.
I sign every petition against driven shooting that I see. I have signed that for licenced driven shooting as well, but IMVHO that can only be a halfway house. Licensing will still need time and effort (which equal money) being spent monitoring keeper behaviour, it will still mean cajoling police and government into action, and it won’t impact upon the wider environmental damage caused by moor burning.
I am not knocking those advocates for licensed shoots (it took a friendly but trenchant response from Mr Avery at Birdfair to convert me!), but the behaviour of the shooting lobby just makes me convinced that as a body they are incapable of change.
Again, thanks to Mark and all the heroes of this battle. We will win.
The RSPB should pull out of the so-called Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group as well. Another talking shop and waste of time dominated by shooting organisations.
no they shouldn’t pull out of that one currently yes the shooting lobby is well entrenched but each meeting that gets less and less sure. One day they will be out of it themselves.
Well I sign petitions that I think are worthy of signing.
Do not understand Jonathon’s comment previously saying I seem to think they are the be all of conservation he seems to be putting a intellectual guess to a ordinary persons thinking.
Ha Ha,well done as guess the RSPB has some input to this.
Osprey chick from Poole harbour relocation project seen in Senegal journey of at least 4316Km
What a pity it was not done years ago as lots of local birders wanted as it is so obviously a almost certain perfect place for such action.
I’ve always thought and argued that the only reason shooting interests and their representatives engage in this sort of initiative, and indeed encourage them is to:
a) Find out how much conservationists know about the methods used by shooting interests to illegally persecute birds of prey. In other words it’s intelligence gathering so they can keep one step ahead of what they see as the “opposition”.
b) Sabotage attempts to reduce the illegal persecution of raptors by highlighting spurious issues and suggesting specious solutions.
c) To be able to have control and influence over the conclusions of any reports or summaries i.e. to object to any wording highlighting the frequency of illegal persecution.
In other words I am suggesting that this participation is entirely disingenuous and is intended to reduce the effectiveness of those trying to control or detect the illegal persecution of raptors, and to ensure that the wider public never gets to learn the scale of this illegal persecution.
I think we can be quite certain of this. I know that I have never been alone in being sceptical about the sincerity and intentions of shooting interests in their involvement in schemes to reduce the illegal persecution of raptors. However, with hindsight this is no longer just a suspicion. We now have decades of empirical evidence for the effectiveness of conservationists engaging with shooting interests to reduce the illegal persecution of raptors. The results are quite clear.
1) This has not resulted in any meaningful reductions in the illegal persecution of raptors. In fact recent events like the failure of any Hen Harriers to successfully breed in England suggests that orchestrated persecution on places like grouse moors is at an all time high.
2) Those illegally persecuting raptors seem to becoming more adept at evading detection and prosecution. The evidence of continuing illegal persecution is strong, yet less are being prosecuted. I say this is because of the participation of shooting interests with conservationists in these initiatives i.e. the shooting interests are learning about how illegal raptor persecution is detected.
On this latter point. Shooting interests often stridently demand evidence of illegal persecution. I am suggesting that they demand this evidence to find out how much is known about the illegal persecution they are engaged in.