I’ve been sent this passage from two SNH staff (the versions differ by a few letters and commas – I’ll put that down to transcription errors) – that they say was put out on the internal SNH intranet by their Director of Operations, Nick Halfhide, following the withdrawal by the Scottish Raptor Study Group of their judicial review after forcing SNH to think again.
We were pleased to hear this week that the Scottish Raptor Study Group have decided to now not pursue their petition for a Judicial Review of our decision to licence control of Ravens in Strathbraan and in doing so, saved public money being spent unnecessarily. We will continue to focus on taking action to save our vulnerable wading bird populations through initiatives such as that being progressed at Strathbraan, or any similar future community lead initiatives.
This is excellent news and testament to the work that the licensing team have undertaken to ensure that our legal team have had the best possible information to make our case.
It’s almost as though SNH had won, according to them, isn’t it? Nick Halfhide is part of the SNH Senior Leadership team but he seems to be leading SNH staff up the garden path on this one.
When this ‘news’ was released, SNH staff all over Scotland were heard falling off their seats with surprise, others could be seen with their heads in their hands and it was difficult to discern whether they were laughing or crying at this version of events.
SNH staff had been kept in the dark on this matter by senior management and had to use the same reliable news outlets as the rest of us, most notably the RaptorPersecutionUK blog. Many staff feel the organisation has got this very badly wrong. I much prefer the version of events put out by the Scottish Raptor Study Group as follows:
Dear supporter,
This morning we have instructed our legal team to withdraw our application for judicial review of the Strathbraan raven cull licence.
The reasons for this are as follows:
Our initial objectives for applying for judicial review were to (a) establish that the process and scientific justification for the SNH raven cull licence (i.e. ‘just to see what happens’) was flawed and should not be permitted to be used as the basis for this or for any future cull licences for ravens or other protected species; and (b) to have the 2018 raven cull licence stopped.
We have succeeded in achieving both objectives.
At the end of July, SNH published a review conducted by its own Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC) which utterly condemned the scientific justificiation and design of the ‘study’, calling it “completely inadequate”, “seriously flawed” and “will fail to provide any meaningful scientific evidence”.
As a result of this damning review, SNH also announced that the licence holder (Strathbraan Community Collaboration for Waders, SCCW) had agreed to ‘voluntarily suspend’ the raven cull from the end of July until the licence expires on 31 December 2018, having killed 39 of its licensed quota of 69 ravens. On a superficial level this appeared, initially, to be a satisfactory response, but we had concerns that the ‘voluntary suspension’ was not legally binding and so the SCCW could continue to kill ravens at any time for the remaining duration of the licence.
However, we are now satisfied that the SCCW has made an undertaking to voluntarily suspend the cull, which in effect means the licence will not be used again before it expires on 31 Dec 2018. According to our lawyers, the use of the word ‘undertaking’ has more legal significance than the word ‘agreed’, so if the SCCW does decide to continue killing ravens under the terms of the current (flawed) licence, even though it has undertaken not to, this would open an opportunity for us to launch a further legal challenge. It is important to note that it is the SCCW that has made this undertaking to voluntarily suspend the cull, and not SNH. Therefore any potential legal action on this point would be taken against the licence holder, not SNH.
Mr Halfhide must have gone on the same media management course as Prof Des Thompson, SNH senior scientific advisor, who greeted the panning of the science behind the Raven cull with a similarly upbeat statement.
It’s now impossible to differentiate between SNH and NE. And not because they are so much appreciated.
They seem determined to follow senior Natural England managers and executives down the pan!
Classic case of being “economical with the truth”.
But look out for “similar future community lead initiatives”.
Barrie – yes, shot themselves in the foot 😉 ?
Time for an enquiry into a number of issues such as the #RavenCull and the many other culls that have been licensed by SNH, in particular the continuing Mountain Hare cull. The SNH leadership needs to explain its decisions to Ms Cunningham, hopefully there will be a change of management and direction. More wildlife than game.
So, they (SNH & NE) no longer fulfill what we as public/conservation believe to be their remit?
Other than delivery (in a fashion) of the management of publicly owned NNRs what is the point in their existence? Hand out cash to land owners, advice, engagement – all that could be reviewed and revised? OK, a bit radical but why not dissolve the organisation(s), thereby removing the protection around the various Ministers and senior servants? Yes, I’m sure there are some good staff in the organisation somewhere but are the hierarchy fit for public benefit/purpose?
Wonder when the new chair of NE recruitment will begin, or rather the spin by the Minister that it’s a public appointment etc. etc.? Ex-banker, Ex-developer, Ex-businessman …. no campaigners or conservationists with commitment to leaving the natural environment/planet in a better state need apply?
I read in British Wildlife that Michael Gove has issued other Raven culling licences based on this research. Are they being revoked or voluntarily suspended?
Pity the man, he may actually believe that he does not look like a failure clutching at straws. He needs to find another job.
It is very effective spin at that. Worse, the cobbled together alliance of different groups with similar but different aims that SRSG and RPUK managed to assemble for the Legal Challenge will now disintegrate and drift apart. SNH played a blinder, and SRSG a massive own goal; they should have gone to verdict. They’ll never get all these people together again.
When you are dealing with groups of people on the political left (and like it or not, that is where Environmental groups operate) then once you’ve got everyone together you have to charge forward. As soon as you take the foot off the pedal everyone goes their own way. Environmental and leftish groups work on emotions more than technical correctness. Groups like SNH know this, and, even if not going to verdict may have being the strictly sensible move, it was still the worst possible move for the movement. The use of tactical concessions is a well worn weapon by the establishment.
This is a PR and strategic victory for the shooters, there is no two ways about it. If this was any sort of tactical win for raptor protection groups, it was a strictly pyrrhic one; and like old King Pyrrhus said “more victories like this and we’ll all be undone”.