The RSPB has revealed, ahead of Hen Harrier Day on Sunday, that as well as the five nests producing 22 fledged young in the Forest of Bowland, RSPB staff were involved in a partnership (for the fifth year in a row) in Northumberland where this year three successful nests (out of six attempts) produced nine fledged young. And in addition there was a successful nest in the Peak District which fledged two young. I make that 12 nests producing 33 fledged young which on its own is almost as many, on both measures, as last year.
But we know there must have been two nests in North Yorkshire, where one of the pairs was brood-meddled although we don’t know whether those young Hen Harriers have survived the experience and whether, if so, they have been released to take their chances on grouse moors. Maybe we’ll be told about another pair or two of Hen Harriers at this late stage of the season – that sometimes happens. We’ll see.
However, unless Amanda Anderson and the Moorland Association have been keeping a host of Hen Harrier nests up their sleeves, we won’t have seen the flood of nesting Hen Harriers on driven grouse moors that we were promised as a result of brood-meddling being licensed. That’s not surprising.
It does sound as though 2019 will be the one of the most successful Hen Harrier breeding seasons in England for more than a decade – that’s good news. Any progress from rock-bottom is to be welcomed. To keep things in proportion there were about twice as many nesting Hen Harriers in Bowland alone in the 1980s as there are in the whole of England this year – and that doesn’t sound remotely like progress.
Martin Harper makes a good point in his blog – none of the Hen Harriers tagged by RSPB in previous years are still alive. From this, and from the analysis carried out on the Natural England data, we know that mortality of young Hen Harriers fledged in England is massive – most don’t make it to the end of the grouse shooting season on 10 December, let alone to Christmas, let alone to their first spring where rather few of them would breed anyway, and let alone to their second spring when these birds would stand a chance of producing offspring themselves. Under these circumstances the number of fledged young is almost irrelevant, biologically – these birds won’t pass on their genes to the next generation.
The RSPB is now calling for a Werritty-like review of grouse shooting in England – I’m not sure why. Rumours of what Werritty will produce are not very encouraging, but are just rumours, and a review in England would occupy a year or two and would simply park the possibility of any progress for that time. Calling for a review gives grouse shooting more time – it is just what grouse shooting wants.
And an English review would tell us all what we already know about Hen Harriers – the English Hen Harrier population is now dependent on immigration from outside English uplands to ‘survive’. It is not self-sustaining under these levels of illegal persecution. Only by removing the killing power of grouse moor interests (Hen Harriers are ten times more likely to be found illegally killed or to cease transmitting a satellite signal on grouse moors than other habitats) will the population recover and become self-supporting.
And yet the RSPB still argues for licensing of grouse shooting. How is that going to work? How will it stop wildlife crime? We’ve never been told. The RSPB hasn’t laid out the arguments other than a vague and ineffectual ‘we must do something’.
If you want to see Hen Harrier populations increase in England and become self-supporting, and you want to end wildlife crime in the uplands, then the ‘something’ you need to do is to ban driven grouse shooting. Pass me a petition and I’ll sign it.
And there are so many other reasons to ban driven grouse shooting anyway – it’s an unsustainable land use dependent on high levels of wildlife crime. The RSPB knows all this in its heart and actually, in its head too – and Martin says as much in his video.
Martin Harper’s analysis of what is wrong with intensive grouse moor management is spot on – it’s just that licensing is not the solution to those problems. His video just needs a small edit – the last words he utters should not be ‘grouse shooting needs to change’ but instead should be ‘grouse shooting needs to go’. Only when the RSPB gets off the licensing fence will we see progress on rewilding the uplands, on better carbon storage in the uplands, on reduced flood risk downstream of the uplands and a more diverse wildlife in the uplands. At a time when protected landscapes are up for review then calling for a better regulated (in some unspecified way) status quo is too feeble, too timid and too little too late.
If we hadn’t had intensive grouse moor management for a century and a half, and someone suggested introducing it today, from scratch, no-one would say yes, and they wouldn’t be convinced if one said to them ‘Ah, but we’ll license shooting estates at the same time’. It would be a non-starter. So, if you wouldn’t let this damaging land use in on those terms, why would you even consider letting it remain on those terms?
Nature conservation needs to be against driven grouse shooting, not tolerant and ever-patient of it. Asking for a review is akin to giving driven grouse shooting a lifeline when it looks like it is drowning in a sea of bad news.
I have many friends in the RSPB and I would ask them to think again. The RSPB’s proposed solution isn’t a solution and by banging on about reviews and licensing they are hampering progress on a large range of fronts in the uplands. It’s time for the RSPB to get real and get campaigning for a ban of driven grouse shooting.
[registration_form]
Mark, you ask the RSPB to think again on the issue of licensing as many of us have done before. Either our emails on the subject get ignored altogether, or we members, the few of us that know of the issue, are sent a bland reply that says nothing.
‘Pass me a petition and I’ll sign it’ you say.
Maybe that is the answer. The, our, RSPB won’t listen to us and put the issue to the members, maybe it’s time to start a petition and show them how we feel collectively. Not another petition to government, but directly appealing to the RSPB.
Is there any support for this idea, is it worth pursuing? I’d be happy to give it a go on, say, 38 degrees, but it would need promoting far and wide. Everyone who calls for a ban would have to promote it. Not just here but on RPUK, LACS, Revive, birding mags, etc. People that have had difficulty working together in the past would have to come together in this call.
Imagine if we could reach a quarter of the RSPB membership with this. Either they would have to bow to public/members opinion, or explain to us why they KNOW licensing would work.
So, there it is Mark. You’ve thrown down the gauntlet and I’ve picked it up. Is there any support for this?
In the field of making sure harriers rear young the RSPB are very hard working and by and large have it right. One has nothing but admiration for the folk on the ground involved in this, both staff and volunteers put their hearts and souls into it, even knowing the young will most likely be killed on grouse moors.
As to licencing its never going to be policed properly or heavily enough, the grouse shooting cabal cannot or will not obey the law now, what chance licencing, even if they accept a civil burden of proof. This was/is an olive branch too far the only thing that will work is a ban, the criminals are too deeply embedded and too numerous for the good guys in grouse shooting to win through however much the likes of Amanda Anderson claim otherwise. We hardly need a review to tell us what we already knowbut of course the DGS cabal and their friends will claim it will be a disaster for waders—- make them restore blanket bog properly as at Dovestone and it probably won’t be, especially if we can get rid of high numbers of pheasants in the immediate surrounds as it seems these attract predators!
Natural England and/or the Moorland Vandals, sorry Association announced sometime ago locally that one nest in the Nidderdale AONB reared five young, this is the “other” nest that wasn’t managed/vandalised under licence. It is rumoured that the vandalised breeding attempt also had five young. There was also one other nest, in the Yorkshire Dales NP that reared three young ( same area as last year).
It really is piss poor that North Yorkshire, which should be THE key area in England for Hen Harriers has just THREE nests and yet one of those is brood meddled in appeasement to the grouse cabal. FFS if that is their level of commitment to harrier conservation, never mind all the roost shooting time DGS went the way of the Dodo ( and RSPB hierarchy woke up to this!)
In a situation like this shouldn’t we, RSPB members, be lobbying the Council members? Are they the ‘key’ to changing this stance? And, if so, how best to do it?
You omit to say, conveniently that the success rate of breeding hen harriers, regardless of persecution is only 30%, be that due to predation, poor food source, weather etc.. And, the other issues you cite as wrong with grouse shooting are either based on poor science and unproven, based on your prejudice, or, again you omit, are being actively addressed by landowners and Natural England, whom you loathe (mutual feelings, I suspect) in moorland restoration.
Justin SO – what do you mean by 30%? That’s a bit meaningless isn’t it?
What’s moorland restoration and where is it happening please? Surely no moors are in need of restoration having had years of tender care?
If your 30% is nesting success you are essentially wrong in natural habitats it is around 50%.
If you mean survival of young, that is in England currently possibly true because of persecution, which is additive but we have no way of knowing what the natural figure is because there is no population in the UK that is not affected by persecution. Survival of young in closely related species is somewhat higher than 30% however.
I have been going on grouse moors regularly as a birder, walker, worked on them for 6 years, at times as a beater and been talking to owners, keepers and shooters for over fifty years and I would suggest when it comes to most issues to do with and around grouse moors you are the one who is wrong Justin.
Here is some idea of the mortality but there is nothing natural about this, it is criminal
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2405296?&s
The Effects of Illegal Killing and Destruction of Nests by Humans on the Population Dynamics of the Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus in Scotland: B. Etheridge, R. W. Summers and R. E. Green. Journal of Applied Ecology Vol. 34, No. 4 (Aug., 1997), pp. 1081-1105
In that case Justin, assuming your figure is true (I await your evidence)) its hardly helpful if those Hen Harriers that do fledge successfully are then slaughtered by persons associated with driven grouse shooting before they have a chance to breed?
It is undeniable that a large number of birds we know about (those that have been tagged) perish on or near Grouse Moors before they have a chance to mature and breed.
In view of the evidence of this slaughter, Mark is hardly prejudiced against grouse shooting, he is merely stating what the evidence is showing.
Now if those associated with grouse and other shooting were really interested in conservation, then they would be open and transparent about what happened on their estates, allow independent verification of their activities, after all if they are not committing any crime what have they got to hide?
The RSPB has a new chief executive about to take office. Maybe she will prove more receptive to taking a harder line. Certainly an opportunity to press the case (again) to the organisation that can make the biggest difference on this issue.
Very sad that you feel it necessary to attack the RSPB in this way, Mark. They are not calling for “a better regulated status quo”, as well you know. They are calling for an end to illegality and for exactly what we all want to see in the restoration of our uplands, and are demonstrating what is possible at Dove Stone etc.
The problem is that much of the uplands is owned by very rich well-connected people who care little for blanket bogs or hen harriers. And the government has hobbled Natural England to please them.
I support licensing because it has the potential to provide the solution and because it has a chance of happening under a sensible government (if we can ever get one). Also, if driven grouse shooting were banned I don’t think land use in the uplands would pan out quite how you envisage, and conservation would be the ultimate loser.
Bob W – very sad that you choose to attack me – not really. You see, that’s how it weorks if you have a different view. You diagree with me and the RSPB diagrees with me too.