New Natural England chair faces massive criticism on social media

21 Replies to “New Natural England chair faces massive criticism on social media”

1. Tony’s named after the wrong tree – how about Cercis siliquastrum?
   The Judas Tree…

2. To me the biggest and most obvious flaw in the brood meddling nonsense is the notion that if you release reared Hen Harriers in say southern England where there’s no grouse moors, that somehow Hen Harriers will re-populate southern England and the like, and ignore grouse moors. In other words the whole scheme seems to be based on fallacious premises.

   My understanding of Hen Harrier behaviour is that they range far and wide looking for ideal breeding territories in the spring, and feeding territories in the winter. That their first choice breeding habitat is upland moorland, typified by grouse moors. That if they thrive in their first choice habitat i.e. what is used as grouse moor, then with these territories full, they will start using second and third choice territories as we see in Continental Europe, such as the places they will be released in, in the southern part of England.

   I don’t claim to be any sort of expert in avian ecology, and I’m just going by general observation and the existing literature. Yet when I’ve asked more knowledgeable ornithologists about the correctness of my simplified model of Hen Harrier behaviour, they sort of imply that it is possibly correct, but know one really knows, as it has not been thoroughly researched. Which makes me wonder on what basis this absurd brood meddling programme has been based. It seems to be based on little more than wishful thinking that somehow Hen Harriers will learn to avoid grouse moors, so the grouse moor owners will stop illegally killing them.

   The whole thing is so unscientific, ecologically illiterate, and so obviously been done at the behest of organized wildlife criminals, that it beggars belief that a statutory conservation body would involve themselves in it.

   1. SteB – your general point is right but the plan involves releasing the birds back into grouse moor areas where they will..well, they’ll be persecuted according to NE’s own published research.

      1. Yes, that is the big problem. All I was saying is that wherever they’re released they will gravitate back to grouse moors as their first choice of breeding habitat, where they will be relentlessly persecuted by shooting interests. It has become pretty clear that virtually all managed grouse moors are involved in some sort of illegal persecution of raptors. There may be some exceptions, but I’m not certain about this, and there is likely to be differences in how far this is taken. In other words, some estates might just engage in legalistic contrivances to disturb and deter breeding raptors, whereas others might go on for a more full on illegal killing approach.

         However, whatever, the circumstantial evidence suggests “almost” universal persecution across managed grouse moors. We can be quite certain of this because if persecution was just by a few bad apple estates, we’d expect to see patchy distribution of successfully breeding raptors on grouse moors. Whereas the reality is the the widespread disappearance of successfully breeding raptors, not just Hen Harriers, across most managed grouse moor.

         Given the depth of evidence for wide scale illegal persecution on managed grouse moors, it it remiss of the authorities not to address this. I say the “authorities”, because it’s not just a Natural England thing, and the problem is self-evidently the reluctance of Natural England’s political masters to clamp down on this illegal persecution. The standard tools to clamp down on a widespread crime problem are well known to politicians, and yet oddly have never been applied here. This is increasing punishments for offences, increasing powers of investigation, increasing resources for detection and prosecution, with a political master backed drive to pursue the perpetrators. In this instance it would be simple because the suspects are few, easily identifiable and are highly associated with the areas of grouse moor they are managing. The only obvious reasons that this doesn’t happen is because the perpetrators have got strong connections with the political party in power, and are ultimately senior members of the established order.

         Can you imagine the scandal if there was any other widespread crime problem, and despite the authorities knowing full well who was responsible for this crime, they just turned a blind eye and refused to provide the resources to tackle the problem?

         1. Yes

3. Mark, if as you say Tony Juniper is a mate of yours hope you’ll be having a word to point out the error of his, and NE’s, ways.

   1. Giles – I’m sure we’ll all be invited round for tea and a chat one day…

4. I’d have expected a review of the Hen Harrier ‘Plan’ when Tony took up his new position, with open discussions with stakeholders, including reputable organisations that have rejected the Defra plan. Rather, Tony has taken the easy route of simply rubber-stamping the most contentious aspect of the plan. Fresh approach?

   What’s serious here is the widespread impact this ‘trial’ will have. If rolled out across many driven grouse moors – or many grouse moors – it’ll both solidify existing intensive management on DGMs and potentially stimulate high-yield grouse management across new areas.

   This single decision by Tony Juniper thus has the potential to affect the long-term future of large parts of our uplands. He needs to appreciate why this is serious.

   Tony claimed in one tweet that no-one has come up with better options than removing hen harrier broods. This is hugely insulting. It ignores the RSPB call for licensing. It ignores Mark’s suggestions, including an outright ban of the most damaging forms of moorland management. It ignores various ideas put forward by writer Tony Juniper in his books, talking about upland forest regrowth for water and carbon attenuation. It ignores the REVIVE report.

   Tony Juniper appears to be ignorant of his own advocacy and that of others.

   Here’s a better plan: require that DGM managers reduce demanded grouse densities, and thus reduce demanded management intensity, and thus remove the excuse for killing adult harriers or removing harrier broods.

   1. Steve – it’s a Defra ‘plan’ and as NE don’t have any real independence then they appear to think they have to suck it up and then talk it up.

5. I say give Tony a chance, it’s all too easy to criticise my social media. Give him a year to get things sorted.

   1. Pete – that would amount to giving other views a year’s start in advocacy.

   2. I really don’t understand your logic, Pete. That works if this decision didn’t have profoundly important implications. How can Tony reverse his decision in a year? The profound implication is that, if ‘successful’ the ‘trial’ will be rolled out across driven grouse moors, as a way of enabling their intensive management to continue unencumbered by pesky hen harriers.

      Tony is a master of deploying social media – including Twitter – in campaigning for conservation. Our doubt he’s as sensitive as you imply – and he actually started it with his own Tweet promoting brood removal and attempting to compare what’s being done to hen harriers with what’s being done with sea eagles. He knows full well he mixing means objectives with ends objectives. Brood removal is a means to an ends; it’s the ends that stink.

6. See what Gove did there?

7. Here’s an incident I’m going to recount here because I feel it’s fully relevant to the post. About 11 years ago now I attended a weekend away for FoE Scotland local groups and campaigners. There was a lady from Bedfordshire there, a visiting guest, who I fell into conversation with. Very quickly she raised the subject of Tony Juniper, she claimed to know him personally (which I had no reason to doubt) – and she did not have one good word to say about him. She was utterly scathing in fact and according to her he had a pretty comprehensive set of professional and personal faults. Of course he wasn’t there to defend himself or put his side of the story, but the lady was a committed environmentalist and to me seemed a very decent human being not prone to malice so I took her views seriously even though they have been at odds with TJ’s standing within the environmental movement. That’s why I couldn’t quite greet the news of his selection to head NE with the great enthusiasm others did. It’s also meant I wasn’t surprised at the news he’s given the thumbs up, without any reservations it seems, to brood meddling. Bad for hen harriers, but not as a career move. Will TJ’s stance be a surprise to those who picked him for his latest job? I think Prince Charlie who TJ has collaborated with in the past will be happy with this. Has TJ ever put his neck out in the same way Chris Packham has?

   1. “research indicates that in the ranks of senior management, psychopathic behavior may be more common than we think – more prevalent than the amount such seriously aberrant behavior occurs in the general population”

8. Not disagreeing with the reactions here at all, BUT someone needs to interpret what’s going on in NE after Juniper’s arrival. He is bound to have had a lengthy meeting with Gove after the Licencing fiasco and Gove is bound to have said that NE need to get a grip! Juniper, like ANY new boss, will have met with his seniors and reviewed the status of key issues. ONE of those will have been brood meddling. If they didn’t raise it, HE would have done and said “we need to regain the initiative on many fronts. We ARE a laughing stock. In doing what they’ve done he’s wrong-footed the estates as well as us.
   Understand the tactics, as well as feel let down.

9. I would appeal to folks to try to interpret Juniper’s actions. Gove is bound to have told him, post the licencing saga, that NE needs to get a grip. Juniper, like ANY new boss will have reviewed key issues with his seniors and, if they didn’t raise meddling, he would have done. By taking this path he’s appeasing his political boss AND wrong-footing the estates.
   Understand the motives, don’t just get angry.

   1. How has he wrong-footed driven grouse moor estates? Even if all hen harrier killing stops now, the English hen harrier population will be deliberately kept at a density far, far lower than it ought to be. Job done as far as driven grouse moors are concerned: the continue their intensive management and don’t change a jot.

10. The plan is woeful, impractical, ill conceived and cannot work, for the reasons why look at Muddle of brood meddling – round 2 on this blog and the associated comments. At the time the grouse shooting cabal seriously suggested this as an approach and confirmed that if England only had two pairs of Hen Harriers and they were on the same moor one would need to be subject to brood removal.
    At that time NERF of which I was then chair attended meetings concerning Hen Harriers through the Environment Council with the grouse shooting organisations, some years ago now, we walked and little has changed since except this ludicrous idea was incorporated into another ” Plan” to save the harrier that the raptor workers organisation NERF had no part in, having been excluded from the meetings at DEFRA.
    We need to keep up the pressure on all concerned even those only partially involved, local authorities where birds are removed ( if we know where) National Parks, AONBs, MPs, even Tony Juniper where appropriate and spell out why this part of the plan is an impractical nonsense that flies in the face of logic, morality and probably the law. Really spell it out and don’t be insulting ( I find that often difficult in this case) why it is a recipe to nowhere, panders to criminality whilst perpetuating the problem rather than solving it. If you are angry like me about this (and am I incandescently angry) make that anger work for you and of course the beleaguered Hen Harrier. The Grouse shooting cabal like this plan it gets them what they want, lets make sure everybody else knows its just a bucket of Poo and we might just might get something much better.

11. I daresay TJ is a sincere and decent bloke. The trouble is, this decision stems from the same flaw in world-view that was exposed in his earlier advocacy of the ‘natural capital’ concept. By promoting the idea of putting monetary values on nature, he demonstrated that his instinct is not to change the system of values that has led us into the current state of ecological collapse, but rather to acquiesce to it. His attitude is that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the status quo, it just needs tweaking.
    Keep on clearing the forests to make cattle ranches, so long as you pay more to do so. Keep on shooting Hen Harriers, so long as you find a corner where the pesky conservationists can play at saving the species.

    1. michael – thank you. Slightly harsh view of Tony I think, but, as others have said, he did choose to come out so strongly in support of this daft plan.

Comments are closed.