They are just one species of bird, and their numbers in the UK have increased a bit over the last couple of decades, but still the hen harrier's plight is resonant of a distant age when nature was persecuted freely.
I believe, and the RSPB believes, that this is a species which is ruthlessly killed by some of those involved with grouse shooting. The evidence for this comes from science, rumour, film evidence, a few court cases and the more honest members of the shooting fraternity. And this regular killing is of course totally illegal.
Things have got worse over recent years - by which I mean that the degree of honesty on this subject has decreased in the 'sporting' press and the organisations which claim to represent 'shooting folk'. It was not so long ago that honest men from the shooting community accepted that hen harrier persecution was common and unacceptable - some even wrote scientific papers on the subject.
The pity of it is that we do not believe that everyone is 'at it' but that view would be easy to maintain since the number of voices raised against these practices in the shooting community is very small and rather quiet. The community that protects its evil-doers has to share some culpability, surely?
Personally I get on rather well with many members of the shooting community - their and my love of the outdoors and of nature gives us quite a lot to talk about. I wouldn't be interested in shooting grouse or pheasant but I am not personally that worried that people do - and the RSPB which remains strictly neutral on the ethics of field sports. But illegal activity is different - and that's what raptor persecution is. And the shooting community has gone down in my estimation because it is not honest about what so many of its members know to be true - that illegal persecution of birds of prey (hen harriers included) is widespread and covertly encouraged.
I have had moments when I have wondered whether this issue is so small in the big scheme of things that we should simply move on. But then I always come back to the fact that if the RSPB does not speak up about this issue then precious few others will. And it's wrong - killing protected wildlife is wrong.
But what do you think? Should the RSPB take a deep breath and calm down on this subject - or perhaps redouble its efforts? You tell me.
Previous blogs on this subject are (here, here, here, here, here and here) and here too.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
I too have wondered whether the RSPB should calm down on this issue and take a more pragmatic view. It is, after all, the habitat that matters most, not the fate of individual birds. However, it is difficult to see how RSPB could do this without more of the shooting community taking a responsible attitude to the problem.
Things are not helped by the anti-shooting prejudice of some birders / conservationists. In an ideal world it should be legal to remove problem birds where the circumstances justify it, whether it be Hen Harriers on a grouse moor or a Peregrine at a Roseate Tern colony. The trouble is that that could be the thin end of a very large wedge.
Well talk about a red rag to a bull whatever is Matt on about,of course we do not see many Hen Harriers as a few and i stress hopefully it is a few people bloody shoot them and so more or less have to go to Mull to appreciate them.Am all for compensating grouse shoots if it will help but for sure it is one of the most important things that the RSPB should redouble their efforts on and if he thinks not many people care about Hen Harriers he is so out of touch.Think he has a vested interest somewhere not just a lay person.
Matt - as previously said. To talk about profit of Red Grouse moors you have to look at the tax system. On paper it looks like they can make money but underneath there are many grey areas which the treasury should be looking at. To start with if the money has not been paid to the treasury then that is stealing money from us. So before looking at killing Hen Harriers you have to look at what the treasury is allowing tax to fall through their fingers at our expense. Using a Red Grouse moor as a loss making business suits them paying [or not paying!] lots of tax. Employing people to kill all wildlife which may or may not effect numbers of Red Grouse may then be paid for by you especially when you take into account how many £millions is gained by these shoots using High level stewardship payments.
You are certainely going out with a blog bang Mark! I had a great visit yesterday to the little known RSPB Old Hall Marshes reserve on the Black Water Estuary so I can't keep up with your blogs. However I take this blog very much to heart. There is NO way the RSPB should calm down on the subject of the killing of Hen Harriers and other birds of prey, if anything quite the reverse. The RSPB, as usual, have done and are doing a great job in this area and their investigations unit are to be congratulated. The RSPB is having to match itself against powerful interests and as you say it is very disappointng that those interests will not do more to halt the illegal activities of a few of them. However the RSPB is also a powerful organisation and persistence will pay off in the end, but it may take some time, with set backs on the way. If the RSPB were to walk away from this cause (which I Know they will not do), it would open the flood gates to even more illegal activity.
redkite
Hi Mark,
I'm speaking here as a layperson, not as an expert.
Off the bat, I want to make it clear that I completely condemn the illegal persecution of birds of prey, particularly the rare and beautiful hen harrier.
It seems to me we have a tricky problem here - the Moorland Association states on its website that managing moors means taking payments of £52.5 million a year from its members - this is a huge business and a substantial employer in the areas where there are moors - both for gamekeepers and for casual work during the shooting season. Any predator runs against the grain of the macroeconomic drivers to make a profit/living in these areas.
Furthermore, on the Moorland Association website, there is government praise for the conservation role of moorland management - these landowners obviously believe, or at least are willing to take credit for, benefitting the ecosystem.
It also seems like any dip in grouse numbers is a substantial impact on potential profit margins. I'd like to see firm science on how much impact a single predator can have.
Essentially - legislation protecting predators has been built around a piece of cultural heritage and also a business which tries to make a profit.
It seems to me that we need to take into account these wider socio-cultural and macro-economic drivers. Could there not be some sort of monitoring of hen harrier scheme and government incentives/subsidies for higher numbers of breeding pairs?
I guess as a conservation organisation we need to do better at providing larger areas of breeding habitat for hen harriers that aren't too close to shooting estates - Futurescapes springs to mind.
Government is not going to be convinced to enforce the legislation more stringently unless it feels that enough people care. The hen harrier is a bird the normal person, even the normal RSPB member rarely, if ever, encounters. Mobilising our membership over this would be trickier than on other issues.
The government also has little strategic reason to politically annoy the shooting community.
My bet is that the best approach is to accept that hen harriers are not separate from the human world but that as soon as they stray onto a shooting estate they are part of a private landholding and a business model. If subsidies could compensate any negative predation and encourage conservation of these birds, that would work with, not against, the hooting community's embedded interests which I believe the public have little motivation and the government little incentive, to argue with.
Matt Williams, Assistant Warden, RSPB Snape.