The report on raptor persecution in Scotland published by the RSPB last week deserves a wide readership. I’ve been looking at it again over the weekend.
There is a good, and new, piece of interpretation on satellite-tagged Hen Harriers (p12).
Of the 18 Hen Harriers that died, or which disappeared under mysterious circumstances (ie their tags stopped transmitting suddenly and unexpectedly) in the period 2015-2017, and in Scotland, their circumstances were as follows. Ten birds were recovered: 7 had died of natural causes and the other three had been shot (one bird, Annie, see image below) or had injuries consistent with being shot and these three birds were found on grouse moors (2) and on a Pheasant shoot (1). Of the 8 birds which stopped transmitting and whose tags and bodies were not recovered, 3 were judged to have died of natural causes according to data received from the tags whereas 5 were suspicious disappearances and all 5 disappeared on grouse moors. The RSPB consider that of the 18 birds, 8 (44%) were either known to be or highly suspected of being the victims of wildlife crime and that 7 of these 8 met their fates on or near grouse moors.
These findings are very similar to those reported upon earlier in this blog for those RSPB-tagged Hen Harriers that have disappeared this year (see here) where of 7 birds which disappeared under suspicious circumstances all were on grouse moors whereas of 12 birds known to have died of natural causes none, not a single one, was found on a grouse moor. Last week’s report considers only birds found in 2015-17 and so does not overlap with the 12-0, 0-7 results from the 2018 cohort.
And none of this considers Natural England-tagged Hen Harriers about which we should hear soon, or fairly soon, when at long last the analysis of the NE Hen Harrier data is published. That is expected to show similar findings but we’ll have to wait and see (we have been waiting to see for many, many years).
The data will form an unanswerable case which will mean that politicians should act to crack down on grouse shooting interests because of their manifest leading role in wildlife crime against protected birds of prey. I feel more hopeful of action in Scotland than England but even the grouse moor managers’ moll, Therese Coffey, and the distracted Michael Gove, will surely have to acknowledge that there is a real issue in England which they have been ignoring for far too long.
There is some danger that the data on Hen Harriers are slightly fragmented and have not been brought together as effectively as would be ideal. Last week’s excellent RSPB report deals only with Scotland and the period 2015-17 and so did not bring into consideration English birds (unless, I think, they died in Scotland) and no birds from the 2018 cohort. This is because it is an advocacy report aimed at Scottish politicians and therefore (although it’s a slightly unwarranted ‘therefore’) sticks to ‘Scottish’ data. And the NE data which we expect to see published will only consider those birds tagged by Natural England (18 of which were in Scotland at Langholm) in the period and whose fate was known up until the end of 2017. So there are NE Scottish data and RSPB Scottish data and NE English data and RSPB English data and they cover periods up to or after 2017. I hope that someone is going to make all of this a bit clearer eventually. Maybe working more closely together would have helped?
I personally hate the idea that the RSPB should work with NE, if it means that they use any of the devious methods which NE uses to refuse data access, provides incorrect data, etc. I’d much rather that NE makes their data bug free and issues it, presumably after the report which analyses it if it is not incorporated in full. At that point RSPB may decide it is sufficiently robust to include in the Raptor Hub data if not yet included.
As far as the Scottish/English/IOM data, one only needs to look at the 2018 data from Skydancer which shows a Scottish bird Thoth in Ireland. This again shows the futility of the brood meddling trial, which seems to assume that the birds will not prove troublesome in future to grouse moors. No one has explained that to a species which wanders far before settling, and I doubt that they would listen.
As for the report, it reveals much that I was not aware of in relation to my interest relating to a petition I have in the Scottish Parliament. The RSPB have stepped up to the mark providing a robust report. I have decided that my previous decision to silence my worst fears and just get modified laws past parliament in Scotland was too timid and, and I will likewise respond by ensuring if I am able that the Advocate General and Crown Counsel have to account for their decisions, or, preferably, that the decisions are independently investigated. I have already started on this path. The Advocate General leads Crown Counsel and responded to the RSPB. The head of the Wildlife and Environmental crime unit in the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) stated in a letter she was asked to compose that Crown Counsel concluded that the placing of covert cameras was, in those cases, for the purpose of detecting crime and, as that activity was not authorised, the subsequent video evidence was obtained irregularly. I believe there are good reasons to reject both of these and even in COPFS many would have preferred to reject the decision, but felt unable to do so. If I’m wrong, no harm is done, and little investigation would be needed to satisfy someone who is independent either way. Unfortunately the I in the IPS in Scotland does not stand for independent.
I was wondering if there could be more information from all this data especially if, as Mark says, it was all collated. There could be other statistically significant differences, other than the more obvious land use (ahem), between ‘disappearances’ (ahem) near or on grouse moors and elsewhere. This could be blindingly obvious to researchers so i may be stating the obvious but the ages of the birds could be statically significant. For example under natural circumstances we would expect to see high mortality in the first autumn/winter but very little afterwards. If the ‘disappearances’ were caused by persecution on or near grouse moors they would deviate from this to a certain extent although again first winter birds would still probably be most vulnerable to persecution for various reasons. I would expect to see more ‘disappearances’ of birds older than one year on or near grouse moors than elsewhere. As the tags get older that would effect statistics as they fail but in the first 3 years there could be some very clear data.
There could also be other factors which show up as being statically significant. Do the raptor killers commit their crimes year round or do they kill raptors less at certain times of the year? If tags get more sophisticated we may see the time of last transmission more accurately, perhaps this could also highlight statically significant differences.
It’s an excellent report, which will no doubt anger shooting interests because of it’s forthright nature.
The reason I consider it excellent is that it make it clear that the recorded cases, where traps, tested poison baits, and dead or injured raptors and other birds have been found, are just the tip of a very large iceberg. Quite disingenuously and dishonestly, shooting interests want us to believe that these recorded and confirmed cases are the totality of the problem. I say disingenuous and dishonest, because shooting interests of all people know that this is not the case, and that the vast majority of incidents of raptor persecution are never detected or recorded. If every case was detected and recorded, gamekeepers would never do this because it would be far too risky.
In the past, probably to try and keep a working relationship with shooting interests, public reports about raptor persecution have been a bit circumspect, underplaying the likely extent of the problem. I think this was a tactical mistake, and this just emboldened those illegally persecuting raptors, because they felt they could get away with the dishonest pretence that it was just a few bad apples, rather widespread standard practise across many shooting estates.
This is the overall problem. We have no idea of the overall extent of the problem, because of the shooting industries deny everything, admit nothing strategy. It is entirely possible that there is raptor persecution to some level on most managed shoots. The shooting industry, it’s organizations, and professional bodies of gamekeepers like to claim that most are ethical, and would never even consider such a thing. However, as time has worn on, I’ve become more and more wary of the ethical shooter trope. This is because of the almost total denial employed by shooting interests about the subject. We know for a fact that the scale or this problem is widespread, on a far greater scale than shooting interests acknowledge. It’s widespread enough, that we know for certain that shooters generally are being dishonest when they deny the scale of the problem, nearly all of them. With a practise so widespread, most of these involved in shooting must at the very least hear about what’s going on, and to have sometimes heard those involved boasting about it or discussing it.
This is the nub of the problem, and the reason I suspect that the ethical shooter thing maybe a complete myth, a contrivance. Given that we know that most shooters and shooting interests are knowinly minimizing the problem, how can we trust anything, any of them say? I am not suggesting that on every managed shoots, there is the intensive and reckless persecution we see examples of. But it maybe that on the vast majority of managed shoots, raptors are persecuted if it is considered safe to do it, and there is little chance of detection. The odd editorial in shooting publications does not convince me about the supposed disapproval of raptor persecution. Where is the shooting bases campaign against this, blowing the whistle on culprits, and persistently condemning raptor persecution? If shooters were only half as ethical as they try to convince us, you’d expect outrage from the supposed ethical wing. Whereas the reality there’s huge minimization of the problem from nearly all those involved in shooting.
‘ It is entirely possible that there is raptor persecution to some level on most managed shoots.’
I think this is very likely otherwise there would be a Hen Harrier on every large estate. What we see as crime hot spots could just as likely be worst offender hot spots. Otherwise we are supposed to believe that these hot spots are the sinks for all the Hen Harriers, Peregrines, (by now Red Kites) and in Scotland Golden Eagles ‘missing’ from driven grouse moors. If so, that is one hell of a lot of killing going on in these hot spots and i just can’t see it is geographically possible. Either way this is organised crime where all grouse moors (even non-driven) benefit financially from these crimes. I notice the use of organized crime in this hard-hitting report. I haven’t noticed that wording before but perhaps i have missed it previously. Dave Dick has written in the comments on RPUK that the conspiracy is not only financial and he should know.
These crimes need to be recognised more seriously as organised so at the very least video surveillance, no matter how it is obtained, can be submitted as evidence. Even in Scotland when asked about how this can be reconciled with taking raptor crime seriously Cunningham brushes us off with the bs that this is not a political matter. Laws are not a political matter?
This is it. Hen Harriers range far and wide looking for ideal breeding territories. If only some managed grouse moors persecuted Hen Harriers, you’d expect to see a patchy distribution of successfully nesting Hen Harriers on managed grouse moors. Instead, what you see, is no successfully nesting Hen Harriers, or indeed many or any successfully breeding raptors on managed grouse moors. This is consistent with very widespread and wide scale persecution on managed grouse moors.
Ethical = Killing something much smaller than yourself purely for the fun of it.
I agree with every thing you say it is quite clear that if you look at Peregrine nesting success in the Pennines for example that as far as one is aware there have been no successful nests from Yorkshire and Bowland north in England since the mid nineties on a grouse moor yet there are quite a number of Peregrine sites on said moors. It would be statistically most unlikely that the only moors where Peregrines attempted were moors with a persecution problem, much more likely is almost total blanket persecution preventing any successful Peregrines on private grouse moors in northern England. The same is true of Hen Harriers they cannot just attempt to nest or winter only on moors with a persecution problem, persecution is almost certainly a problem on almost all moors. A retired WCO once said ” the only moors with no harrier persecution problem are moors that never have harriers” I think it is as true today as it was then. In England and probably much of Scotland too there is an almost blanket absence on or immediately adjacent to grouse moors of breeding Peregrine, Hen Harrier, Goshawk and Short-eared Owl is going that way too. That must be saying to us that persecution is widespread, relatively common and endemic. The only instance actually on a shoot where a gun left in protest at persecution I know of was where an Eagle Owl was shot in a drive. I know of two instances where Peregrines have been shot on grouse shoots where nothing was said or done other than the evidence disappearing.
To echo the words of that remarkable, young climate campaigner, Greta Thunberg, speaking at COP24 last week: “Until you focus on what needs to be done, rather than what is politically possible, there is no hope.”
I agree entirely with the wise words of Greta Thunberg. It’s all about seeing it is a crisis. I’ve long thought we had out tactics wrong for addressing any number of impacts on the natural world. Received wisdom has it that you need a plan. Yet I can think of very few historical precedents for this approach actually working. Effective change nearly always comes when there is consensus over seeing something as a serious problem. When this happens the plans to address the problem spontaneously emerge.
Coming up with a plan or a strategy for dealing with a problem, before there’s a strong consensus on the need for action, always seems to not lead to a solution. This is because people will disagree on the line of action needed, meaning there’s division, which prevents this consensus occurring. This is why I think we need to focus on recognising the scale of raptor persecution by shooting interests, before we get ahead of ourselves and start coming up with plans to address the problem, which don’t succeed because they never get implemented.
I’d have thought it was perfectly reasonable to extrapolate up from what has happened to the small proportion of the HH population that is tagged to get some idea of the scale of the real problem – so if 5% are tagged and 2% are known to be illegally killed that equates to 40% of the entire population.
Whilst not every shooting estate may be involved in active persecution, they still benefit from the actions of others – if this was a south London gang the police would class it as a ‘joint enterprise’ and prosecute all involved.
The only HH roost I’ve been to was in the New Forest – the nearest nesting HH is some distance away. There seems little chance that brood meddled birds won’t join up with birds at lowland roosts and follow them back to the moors the un-meddled birds came from
Roderick, 5%? Are the number of tagged birds really that low? I know the report mentions a ‘tiny amount’. If the figure is really that low then I suggest it’s about time we crowdfunded a lot more tags.
If this blog can crowdfund a law suit, then why not crowdfund tags? Would there be enough licensed handlers to cope with a higher amount? How much do these tags cost?
Just imagine if we could tag 200 birds next year, then the bird poo would really hit the fan.
Can anybody tell me if this is feasible please.
tags are some where in the region of £2000 each then there are the satellite linkage costs per day to collect and download the data, for 200 hundred birds it may be in the region of £1million.
The RSPB report, Mark’s blog on it and the excellent comments above leave us in no doubt as to the full extent, the reality of this persecution. We need to adjust the picture we have been working on in shouting this from the fell tops and get the campaign into another gear for 2019.
All good stuff Mark, all aimed at trying to make these politicians take some meaningful action against the driven grouse shooting industry which shames this country. Congratulations to the RSPB for producing such an excellent report. Let’s hope that 2019 turns the corner on the prevention of wildlife crime and the penalties for it are really ramped up. Maybe there is a chance this could happen in Scotland. However in England I think until there is a change in regime for the better in Defra and in particular until the arch supporter of driven grouse shooting, Ms Coffey is replaced, I fear little progress will be made. Nevertheless stranger things happen in politics, fingers crossed for 2019.
Paul – no idea, but as you’ll well know the shooting lobby would love us to believe that the only deaths are the recorded ones – whereas logic would suggest that the whole population is suffering at the same rate as the tagged birds. And, as you say, we can’t have enough tags !