Wendy Thomson
IntroductionEarlier this year, the RSPB published a report Peak Malpractice (see www.rspb.org.uk/peakmalpractice ) drawing attention to the persecution of raptors (and also badgers) in the Upper Derwent Valley and the north-east moors (Strines, Broomhead, etc.). This caused quite a stir, with a debate in the Commons, newspaper articles, etc., and a number of people have claimed that persecution is a figment of the RSPB's imagination, and that shooting estates are the best environment for all wildlife. Prior to 2006, the only successful breeding Hen Harriers in the Peak District for 130 years were the famous Goyt Valley pair in 1997, so it was ironic that this year saw two pairs in the Upper Derwent Valley. Round-the-clock protection of the nests was set up but nonetheless the males from both pairs disappeared suddenly in early June (Derbyshire Ornithological Society reported in their Newsletter that "both males last seen 1st June when gunshots heard in the valley").
|
Surprisingly, both females managed to raise five chicks, albeit with the help of supplementary feeding.
In this article I have summarised the Peak Malpractice report, and some of the responses that have followed. In fact, the more I delved into the websites of organisations such as the Moorland Association, Countryside Alliance, etc., the more I became aware of the very deep-seated antagonism there is to the RSPB in general, and its stance on raptors in particular. They accuse the RSPB of everything from lying and distortion to trying to rule the world. Where web addresses are long and complicated, I have given instead suggested entries for Google which take you where you want to be.
|
The Peak Malpractice reportThe Peak Malpractice report begins with a summary of what is happening in the Peak District, how the heather moors are valuable for ground nesting birds, but how some species which should be flourishing are absent or are scarcer than they should be. They refer of course to raptors, particularly Peregrines, Goshawks and Hen Harriers. The report includes findings of the Moors for the Future survey that, over their recording area: " ... peregrines, merlins, short-eared owls and ravens were more abundant, but that goshawks had fallen by over 30%."
However it also uses data obtained by the local raptor fieldworkers (whose hard work is acknowledged in the report) and goes on to point out that "More detailed studies by Peak raptor fieldworkers, licensed by English Nature, reveal a more accurate picture." The report explains that because individual nests are monitored every year, an accurate picture of success/failure is obtained, and there is no bias due to increase or decrease of effort from one year to another. It is also the case, though not explicitly stated in the report, that the Moors for the Future survey give figures for the Peak District moors as a whole, and this obscured the variable patterns in different areas; furthermore they specifically looked at distribution and abundance of moorland birds but did not assess breeding success; thirdly, they did not cover the north-east moors, because the landowners refused them access, and it is in that area that raptors are especially scarce.
In addition to details of individual cases of persecution where sufficient evidence was obtained for prosecution, the report also points out the many cases where raptor nests fail inexplicably, with eggs, chicks or whole nests disappearing; in many instances the adults are present at the beginning of the breeding season, but then vanish mysteriously.
|
Scientific evidence and experience from across the UK suggests that human interference or deliberate killing of adults is a frequent cause of failure. The report goes on to say that moorland managers sometimes contend that raptor monitoring is responsible for nest failures, but that there is no evidence for this. Most monitoring takes place at a distance, and is carefully organised in order to minimise the numbers of visits, and to ensure that the birds are not disturbed when they are most vulnerable.
The report goes into some detail of the fortunes of Goshawk, Peregrine and Raven nests since 1991 in the north-eastern moors, and making comparisons with similar habitats elsewhere. In particular, Goshawk have gone from 11 successful nests to one, and Peregrines from four to zero.
The report ends with a summary of loopholes in the law: it is legal in England and Wales to remove the nests of Ravens and other birds outside the breeding season (in Scotland nests of some species are protected throughout the year) thus making breeding in traditional sites less likely; indeed it is difficult for the Crown Prosecution Service to bring a case to court until eggs have been laid. Secondly, there is no legal requirement for an individual to account for why s/he holds a particular pesticide, however toxic it is.
The report expressed the hope that the new Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, which was at the time of publication going through Parliament, would provide year-round protection of the nests of certain species, and would also make it an offence to possess a pesticide where the holder had no legitimate use for it. (See below for more about the bill.)
|
The Commons debate and the new billFollowing publication of the report, there was a debate in the House of Commons on 14th March, instigated by Angela Smith, MP for Sheffield, Hillsborough. You can find a transcript of this on the Hansard website (enter Hansard and "peak malpractice" into Google).
The debate started at 12.59 pm, so you will have to scroll down through some other stuff. You may feel that Life is Too Short to read the whole lot, as the debate seems to be conducted at a very leisurely pace, but it is worth scanning quickly through to find the really interesting bits. Angela Smith's speech draws attention to the main points of the Peak Malpractice report, and the very depressing picture described by it. There are a number of interruptions from Mr. Peter Atkinson (Hexham) (Con), including the following example of misrepresentation of Moors for the Future findings:
"The hon. Lady will be aware of a report by the 'Moors for the Future' project, which covered the entire Peak District. It was carried out in conjunction with many organisations, including English Nature, the National Trust and so on. They found that the overall population of birds of prey over the Peak District were at record high levels. For instance, populations of peregrine falcons and others had increased by more than 200 per cent."
MMr. Atkinson is Parliamentary and Public Affairs consultant for the Countryside Alliance, for which he receives between £10,001-£15,000, according to the register of MPs' interests.
There is also a contribution from Jim Knight (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) regarding the above-mentioned Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.
|
It is clear that the only species whose nests will be protected throughout the year in England and Wales are to be Osprey, and Golden/White-tailed Eagles! Ravens are excluded (could this be due to farming lobbies?) whilst Angela Smith's attempts to include Peregrines and Barn Owls was refused on the grounds that they are not rare enough, and that they "do not build nests" ... It does seem to make it an offence to possess pesticides without good reason, although it was not clear to me how effective this is likely to be. The Bill received royal assent on 30th March, and details can be found on the government website (enter "Natural Environment and Rural Communities" into Google).
The new body, Natural England, which is to be established on 2nd October 2006 is an amalgamation of various bodies including English Nature and the landscape, access and recreation elements of the Countryside Agency. It is to be based in Sheffield, with a total staffing of only about 25, and with other offices elsewhere. Unfortunately this new body is supposed to promote access and recreation as well as nature conservation and biodiversity, so there will almost certainly be conflicts of interest. Also it appears that it will not have the independence enjoyed by its predecessors since the Secretary of State for the Environment will have the legal power to issue 'guidance' on various matters. Also it has recently been announced that swingeing cuts are to be made to its budgets and the Guardian reported that, in a private letter to David Miliband (the environment secretary) the new chairman of Natural England said "the scale of these cuts risks the wheels coming off the organisation even before it reaches October's launchpad". |
Media responsesThere were a number of responses in the media to Peak Malpractice. On 15th March there was an article by Magnus Linklater in the Times in which he claims that RSPB (and English Nature) are the main villains of the piece, and that they twist the evidence and spread scurrilous lies. Having quoted from Peak Malpractice about "illegal persecution", he continues:
"You will find any number of similar stories on the RSPB's website. What you will not find are some very inconvenient facts, based not on propaganda but on science, which have been issued by the Game Conservancy Trust. Its own report, Nature's Gain, presents a very different picture. It shows that on land that is managed for shooting, whether moorland, woods or pasture, wildlife is thriving. Over the past ten years, on grouse moors, for instance, golden plovers, curlew and lapwing, which are under threat in so many parts of England and Wales, have multiplied by up to five times. The merlin, Britain's smallest bird of prey, is twice as common on grouse moors as elsewhere."
He goes on, listing particular districts and the species which have indeed done well there. However, the casual reader may not notice that raptor species (with the single exception of the above Merlin reference) are totally absent from these lists.
|
The Game Conservancy Trust publishes its manifesto on its website, and takes the view that "consumptive" activities such as shooting is a more sustainable use of wildlife than "non-consumptive" activities such as bird watching.
On Tuesday 18th July, Radio 4 broadcast Peak Nestwatch, a thirty-minute programme covering Peak Malpractice, and the persecution of raptors in the Upper Derwent Valley. The programme included contributions from our own Pete Brown and Mick Taylor (Co-ordinator of the South Peak Raptor Study Group) who, together with Mark Thomas of the RSPB did their valiant best against some breathtaking (and blood pressure raising) statements by Martin Gillibrand from the Moorland Association.
Mr. Gillibrand claimed that there was no evidence for persecution, and in particular that they actually had pictures of a Peregrine which was alleged to have disappeared. He went on to say that: there was no question of the Hen Harriers having been persecuted, and it was more likely that they had been scared off by crowds of birdwatchers; conservationists had a fixation on raptors and had no interest in any other species such as waders; conservation organisations had to keep the money coming in, so resorted to scare tactics to keep their membership up; everyone wants to know why the male Hen Harriers disappeared, but instead of trying honestly to find out, the conservationists just jump to conclusions and blame persecution. |
Some thoughtsIn the above Radio Four programme, Martin Gillibrand portrayed himself as the voice of reason. He insisted that gamekeepers and moorland owners wanted the best for everyone: a flourishing environment with plentiful bird life. Many issues are unknown, he said, for example the reason for the disappearance of the Hen Harriers, and he wanted to know this as much as anyone. If only the bird people were as reasonable as him, instead of taking up their entrenched positions, we could all work things out, and live happy ever after.
However, the Moorland Association had an opportunity for civilised co-operation with the setting up of Operation Artemis. This was an initiative by the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) - a body not normally thought of as dangerous and subversive - to combat persecution of Hen Harriers. The ACPO website explains that the idea is that wildlife crime officers and rural beat officers will visit grouse managers and upland managers operating in areas of Hen Harrier habitat. The managers would be given information packs explaining their responsibilities, the legislation, including Police Powers, and details of Supplementary Feeding Programs (designed to minimise predation of grouse chicks). They would be invited to sign up to and support Operation Artemis. However, the website of the National Gamekeepers Organisation (NGO) contains the following advice about Operation Artemis:
"The NGO's advice remains that you should sign nothing. The Moorland Association has checked the legal position and confirms that there is no obligation on keepers or anyone else to sign this paperwork, which contains many incorrect statements."
|
They have similarly advised their moor owners not to sign. In other words, given the chance for dialogue, the response of both NGO and the Moorland Association is to refuse. This does not sound to me like responsible people wanting the best for everyone.
I am sure that there are gamekeepers who do genuinely wish to see a full range of wildlife on their estates, from the bottom of the food chain to the top. But there are some who do not, or who are leaned upon by their employers to remove anything seen as 'the enemy'. It is profoundly depressing to see these powerful organisations accusing others of lies, prejudices and propaganda, whilst proclaiming their own veracity, honesty and reasonableness. If you are confident you have your blood pressure under control, you will find more of this sort of thing on the websites of Countryside Alliance, Moorland Association, etc.
So there we have it. And every year, the Annual Report of the South Peak Raptor Study Group contains the sad litany of nests that have failed, where human disturbance and persecution is suspected, but action cannot be taken because of lack of hard evidence...
|
