Hen Harriers and grouse moors
Before we explain why we can't support licencing, just how bad is raptor persecution on grouse moors?
In Birdcrime 2022, the RSPB reported that "there were 61 confirmed bird of prey persecution incidents, and at least 64% of these were linked to land used for gamebird shooting", in other words directly linked to the shooting industry. The charity went on to say "These figures only show the confirmed incidents – the actual figures are likely to be much higher– as crimes often take place in remote areas where the perpetrators can easily conceal these activities." In other words, on grouse moors.
Hen Harriers in particular have been ruthlessly targeted, the RSPB saying that:
"Between January 2022 and October 2023, data from the RSPB and Natural England shows that 39 Hen Harriers have been confirmed killed, or ‘suspiciously disappeared’ across the UK. A recent peer-reviewed study published by RSPB Centre for Conservation Science and using a large dataset showed that the survival of tagged Hen Harriers in the UK is very low, and as much as 75% of annual mortality of tagged birds is due to illegal killing associated with grouse moor management."
One incident is one too many, but here we are being told that THIRTY-NINE Hen Harriers - which only breed on moorland in the UK - have been killed or 'mysteriously disappeared' (which is code for killed but the evidence has not been found yet) in just 22 months!
It was less than six months ago, remember, that the RSPB released the following graphic based on the unequivocal response by Beccy Speight, the charity's chief-executive, to the news that three Hen Harriers had been killed within days of the ‘Inglorious 12th’ (the start of the 121-day blood-soaked season the industry uses to sell as many Red Grouse as possible to its complicit clientele).
One 'answer' increasingly put forward -especially after the passage of the first stage of the 'Muirburn Bill' - is 'licencing'. But what is it?
From what we understand, licencing grouse moors would, apparently, involve a shoot obtaining an operational licence from a regulator which would, at minimum, have conditions attached mandating the shoot follows wildlife and environmental protection codes of practice and laws. Where there is evidence suggesting that a shoot has failed to follow those conditions the licence can be withdrawn, even if the evidence pointing to criminality is less than sufficient to merit criminal proceedings.
We fundamentally disagree with licencing, here's why:
Raptor persecution
Will licencing stop raptor persecution? Why would it: all birds of prey have legal protection already (see our Protectors of the Wild page Birds of Prey and the Law). The law is routinely broken because shoots won't tolerate birds of prey on 'their' land because of the impact on profits. Illegal persecution is part of the business model of shooting. And as far as shoots are concerned, laws protecting birds of prey are largely unenforceable anyway. As the RSPB points out, many crimes take place in remote areas far from public view. Licencing doesn't change that. Raptors will still be killed whenever shoots can get away with it.
Licencing actually further enables the slaughter of birds and mammals
Red Grouse
Licencing does nothing to address the fact that hundreds of thousands of Red Grouse are killed for 'sport' every year. As the climate warms, shoots are increasingly introducing pheasants to parts of the highlands and killing them too. These are live birds used as targets for fun. Licencing accepts or implies that is somehow okay. It is not.
Legal predator 'control'
Because current law says they can be, countless thousands of wild animals (including foxes, mustelids (weasels and stoats), and corvids (crows) are ‘legally’ shot, trapped, or snared every year to protect industry profits. Legislation favours the shooting industry so while snares are gradually being outlawed (despite fierce industry lobbying to keep them), restrictions on firearms are not being tightened and the use of traps is widespread. Records are not kept and data on population levels of these animals is not held. Licencing implies that this slaughter of wild animals is somehow okay. Again it is not.
Both sides have to want this to work - they don't.
Acceptance
Whilst the vast majority of us will never think that killing birds of prey and running shoots where thousands of birds are simply bred to be shot is acceptable, the industry as a whole remains convinced it is doing nothing wrong - either legally or morally. Their attitude is that moorland is meant to be shot over, birds like grouse are fun to shoot at, and the rest of us with our 'woke' complaints can get lost. They don't accept that any form of licencing is valid or necessary. Until they accept that they are in the wrong, nothing will change.
Denial
Many industry lobbyists are still in denial that raptor persecution even takes place or work to spin the terrible figures positively (see the Google Alert below which shows how the same news is reported). They routinely ignore the fact that 'hatching' is not the same as 'surviving to adulthood'. Bragging about the number of chicks that fledge is a smokescreen used to hide the fact that in far too many cases once raptors leave the safety of the nest (which is often monitored closely by conservationists and government scientists) they are hunted down and killed.
Grouse shooting is an anachronism with few supporters. Even shooting estates acknowledge there is more money to be made from carbon storage or carbon offsetting than killing birds.
As far as Protect the Wild is concerned, handing it a ‘licencing lifeline’ now without any firm guarantees on a change of attitude, proper enforcement, and a willingness to see that licencing works, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
No comments:
Post a Comment