This account is by a raptor worker who witnessed the illegal shooting of a Hen Harrier near Bowland Knotts in October 2019 within the Forest of Bowland Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Understandably, he wishes to remain anonymous although his identity is known to the police, the RSPB, myself and a few others.
NO FURTHER ACTION
Anonymous writes: My account of seeing a male hen harrier shot last October on the Forest of Bowland is now in the public domain. The RSPB have published it, with follow up of course by both Raptor Persecution UK and Mark Avery.
The police have advised me that the incident was reviewed by a decision maker and that they were unable to charge the suspect. There is a lack of evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was the person I saw commit an offence. I am grateful to the police and RSPB investigation unit who I met. They acted with alacrity to my call, but without firm evidence there is only so much that can be done.
I am so disappointed because if things had fallen just slightly differently the law breaker could have been caught in the act. However, I was convinced that evening as I drove home that the perpetrator would be caught for reasons I outline below.
Unfortunately, that did not come to fruition, but hopefully he will not rest easy because my search goes on for the culprit. The RSPB publication was quite detailed, but certain key facts were deliberately not included at my request although of course they are in my statement to the police.
Let’s start with the easy bit.
Questions I ask myself as I think about who could have done this:
· how many people visit this location?
· how many people visit this location on the edge of woodland driving a ‘mule’ across rough ground?
· how many people visit this location carrying a gun?
· how many people position themselves behind a wall and adjust themselves to cover their lower face before waiting motionless for several minutes?
· how many people after collecting the dead bird drive a short distance and park up near to what turns out to be known by the gamekeeping community as a ‘stink pit’?
The answers of course narrow it down to a small list of suspects all from the same profession.
Now for a few personal thoughts on how the police can be helped to catch these people.
The reason for my initial confidence in catching the culprit was based on that if we didn’t find the bird on the police visit subsequent covert work would surely catch him. The location and his actions both pointed to a strong likelihood that he would attempt a repeat act from the same spot. Plus of course he did not know that he had been watched for an hour.
So I was a bit non-plussed the following morning when my expected ‘quiet visit’ was a high profile job in a marked police van. It seems that the ability to do undercover work which can lead to successful prosecution is for film sets rather than the real world.
The police with the assistance of RSPB investigators were thorough on the ground and subsequently took great care in trying to squeeze everything I could remember for my detailed statement. Their disappointment almost matched mine, but our time will come if we all persevere.
I leave you with the personal lessons I learnt from the exercise. Please try and make sure that you don’t go as unprepared as I was:
· Always take a camera; remember you may be a long way away from the incident; even a poor photo or video is better than no record at all.
· Learn digi-scoping to use your phone with your telescope.
· My over-riding approach on the evening was to make sure I wasn’t seen. Knowing what I know now I would have made more of an effort to find and follow the mule even in darkness and with every possibility my presence would have been obvious.
Some have queried why it took so long for the police to ask for the public’s help. I suspect that the answer to that lies in a combination of the quiet location and even perhaps that the local communities don’t tend to be too keen to give up the criminals within their midst.
I hope now that White Syke which borders the John Fell driven grouse moor are both subject to monitoring. I guess this can be either very visible appearances or through long distance watches like my experience.
We mustn’t let the bastards win so I guess instead of No Further Action we need Ban Driven Grouse Shooting.
[registration_form]
‘I guess instead of No Further Action we need Ban Driven Grouse Shooting.’
###
A robust licensing system, operated on a balance of probabilities burden of proof, under which this type of incident would result in the licence being revoked, might be a more realistic goal for the foreseeable future, given the political landscape (ie right wing Tories and weak kneed Labour).
de – the RSPB is so feeble at lobbying for licensing that we are unlikely to see it – it’s as though the RSPB doesn’t really believe in the idea. that would fit with the fact that no blueprint for what robust licensing would look like has been put out there. One of the reasons you can be keen on the idea is that you have no idea whether your idea is the same as the RSPB’s idea or anybody else’s idea. In comparison, a ban is a ban is a ban – and sorts it, once and for all.
I think you’re falling into the trap of making the perfect the enemy of the good.
Given the political landscape it will be a struggle to achieve the good. The perfect (a ban) is unattainable.
If a licensing system is tried, and fails, then an outright ban becomes more achievable.
It looks like a licensing system, advocated by the SRSGs,might be on the cards in Scotland, where the political situation is a little more favourable, and I can’t see the Westminster Parliament adopting a more radical approach than Holyrood, so essentially England is going to be following Scotland’s lead on the matter.
In the meantime I think what’s needed is more eyes and ears on the ground, suitably equipped with surveillance and recording equipment.
de – i don’t think I am, because i don’t think it will be any good. I think youa re falling into the much commoner trap of imagining the best when you will get something (if you ever get it) that is not much better than what you have already. And then you would have to watch it fail for years before moving on. But I could be wrong.
If only there were a written version of what licensing would look like (at best) for us to argue about or discuss – but there isn’t. And that suggests that the proponents of licensing aren’t really serious about it at all.
‘And that suggests that the proponents of licensing aren’t really serious about it at all.’
No. It suggests that the proponents ie the SRSGs are more attuned to the realities of political lobbying than those calling for something that isn’t going to happen.
de – hardly! ‘ie the SRSGs’ – hardly! Haven’t you noticed that the RSPB is the main proponent of licensing? But if the SRSGs have a worked-up plan for licensing then maybe they’d share it with all of us?
The issue isn’t on the political agenda in England/UK at the moment, and won’t be for the foreseeable future. It is very much on the agenda in Scotland, so, in the real world, the main proponents of a licensing system are the SRSGs, not the RSPB.
And if those proposing licensing produce a template at this stage they will be accused of being closed minded and dictatorial. Better to get the principle agreed first and let the Parliamentary draughtsmen do their job and take it from there.
de – ah! You’re just talking nonsense then … thanks.
Whereas somehow hoping that the UK Parliament is going to ban DGS is sensible? Fair enough.
With all due respect I think the SRSGs have a better grip of this situation than you do (though being a member, I might be biased).
The chance of people getting caught is virtually nil so licensing would not work.
If the licence was withdrawn for suspicion of crime, for example missing tagged birds (a NE satellite tagged HH was ‘disappeared’ about 1km from where anonymous witnessed this killing -SD714612 on 16 May 2009). If the licence was withdrawn for a shadow of a suspicion (low breeding numbers) and withdrawn for a long period (at least 10 years) then it might work.
But this just isn’t going to happen.
Even in Scotland which has a gov more vocal against raptor crime they are dragging their feet https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2020/06/17/new-taskforce-to-consider-increased-powers-for-sspca-sound-familiar/)
When licensing does happen, which i am sure it will, precisely because it won’t work, it will be used as a way of postponing real action, then it will have high burden of proof and extremely low levels of punishment. I know this because of a simple fact. This UK gov has no will to control the estates. I am less certain about Scotland but i think it likely that they too will give a high burden of proof an low penalties.
Licensing is a way to facilitate the raptor killing not to stop it.
Surely now especially during lockdown we realise that a ban is the only solution.
P.S. All above based on the assumption that we all don’t have about 200 years to kill.
‘The chance of people getting caught is virtually nil so licensing would not work.’
Well someone was ‘caught’ in this incident, and if there was a licensing system operated on a balance of probabilities, rather than beyond reasonable doubt, burden of proof, the licence would have been revoked.
Depends on who is in charge of the decision. I would be willing to put money on them also NFA-ing it, if the usual suspects are in charge. The only value in a licencing is that its failure to actually control the shooting community makes an outright ban easier. That is why it is so resisted, aside from the usual kneejerk refusal to acknowledge any authority of course, is that they know it would fail and that that failure might easily be the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Not sure you read my whole comment.
So you wouldn’t object to being prosecuted, just because someone thought you may be guilty of something, or maybe they just have a grudge against you and want you to suffer for their stupidity?
The chances of any licensing system being robustly policed are lower than the chances of getting a ban. For grouse shooting licensing is a soft option and will be little better than what we have now except it will be sanctioned by licence. Far from being a step towards a ban, if it doesn’t work none robust licensing is a way of keeping the status quo for far longer, it makes a ban further down the road than it is now
I know the area where this took place and have met the probable culprit. Devastating to witness such a thing and it not result in a conviction, mentally probably quite challenging. The only thing we can do under such circumstances is learn from the experience and channel the undoubted anger and frustration into determination that we will be ready for the next time( and there will be a next time) because we cannot let the criminal bastards and their bloody handed employers win.
Oh and ban DGS. Licensing may look promising to some folk but do you really think it will be robustly policed? No me neither and without that robustness it is just a road to a long drawn out process that may bring us eventually towards a ban.
Just imagine the reluctant MPs what do you mean the systems not working we gave you what you wanted licensing and we are not changing it. No licensing is the road to nowhere, where what happens now will carry on happening with recriminations on both sides. Be brave be robust and have the courage of your convictions go for a ban!
Well done for the actions you took. Although no prosecution took place the fact that you did make the effort is very encouraging. One day, these people will not be so lucky.
To summarise the problem:
They trusted the police to do their job. The police failed to do their job.
And that is why All Cops Are Bastards and you should never, ever, h-ever trust them. Stop being so bloody middle class about everything.
Random22 – very broad-minded of you.
Anonymous
I am a little worried by one of your lessons from this incident ie “Knowing what I know now I would have made more of an effort to find and follow the mule even in darkness and with every possibility my presence would have been obvious.”
If I was you I would speak to the crime investigation teams at the RSPB and the LACS about that idea.
Whilst checking traps and snares, I have been spotted and confronted by gamekeepers and the experience is not pleasant. In fact it is frightening – especially if you are on your own or it is dusk. They have their off-road vehicles and can quickly catch up when you are on foot. Out in the sticks, a long distance from help is not the ideal place to have a man or men, with a gun or guns, screaming at you.
So, tbh, I would suggest that – if you can:
*you take a friend (for safety reasons and to help you keep calm enough to take decent photos(!)) and that
*you do not make your presence known even if that means your evidence is not as good.
But speak to the professionals. I may be wrong but for me having a friend around is reassuring.
I like your digi scoping suggestion.
Thank you for everything you’ve done. We need more amazing people like you. Wonderful.
Out of interest, did you take photos of the stink pit at the time and did you report that to the Environment Agency?
Since I reported the ‘lamb’ stink pit I mentioned earlier I and some friends have looked into the law on stink pits. The National Gamekeepers Organisation’s rag did a feature about stink pits quite a while ago and recommended to their members that they should not use any animals as bait (including healthy wild animals) to lure foxes to the snares but should use American chemical lures instead as wild animal bait (as well as domesticated animals) might be illegal. We have, subsequently, researched the matter, forwarded that info on to various people and organisations and had confirmation from legal reps in Scotland and England agreeing that stink pits are illegal. If you like, I would be very happy to share the legal information I have on stink pits so that, if you have the evidence still, you can report that stink pit you mentioned to the Environment Agency.
All the best. Thanks again. It was inspiring and wonderful to read your account.