The poor season for hen harriers was covered in yesterday's Daily Telegraph and Guardian. The Guardian basically rehashes our press release (I'm not complaining!) whereas the Telegraph quibbles a bit about whether the lack of this grouse-eater is the fault of grouse-shooters. I found the last line in the Telegraph piece very witty - you don't often find jokes in the papers' news coverage. It says that '...gamekeepers and landowners insist that shooting estates are helping to protect the hen harrier by ensuring grouse moors are well managed and maintaining native moorland.'. That was meant to be a sardonic joke, surely?
I can't find any comment from Natural England on their web page on this sorry state of affairs - although we did offer them a quote in our press release. In the past Natural England has been commendably outspoken on the subject of raptor persecution. On 22 December 2008 Natural England were happy to say 'Persecution is prime cause of harrier disappearance.'. On 2 November 2009 Natural England were happy to say '... illegal persecution has led to today’s critically low breeding numbers and patchy distribution.'. So what has happened since then? The General Election was held on 6 May 2010.
Maybe in this new age, Defra is the place to look for comment on this subject? I cannot find any comment on the Defra website - certainly not under 'news'. Bu then this isn't news is it? It is the status quo.
The Raptor Politics website is naturally concerned about the plight of this fantastic bird. Farmers Guardian and Bird Guides also cover the story.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
Mark,
I haven't studied the Langholm results in detail, but why were there so many harriers there? Was it because of all the grouse to eat (presumably also the case elsewhere), because other predators (foxes, crows etc.) were being controlled (as on other grouse moors), because the harriers were being provided with supplementary food (which is being put forward as a potential solution elsewhere) or simply because the harriers were protected from persecution? Essentially, if all harrier persecution stopped overnight, why wouldn't you expect the same to happen elsewhere?
I'm certainly not advocating that the illegal persecution of birds such as hen harriers should be allowed to continue, and I'd also challenge the view that 'habitat management' by grouse moor owners is helping to maintain 'native moorland' as expressed in the Telegraph. Clearly, if it needs to be managed by regular rotational burning then it's not a native habitat. Far too much of the uplands in this country exist in what is a degraded, treeless state kept open by burning & sheep grazing. Illegal persecution of predators is just part of the issue - much more important is to allow substantial areas to recover to a more natural state with a much more varied habitat mosaic over a large scale.
Carduus - you are right that the Langholm study showed that harriers can eliminate the shootable surplus of red grouse on which driven grouse shooting depends. It certainly did there - but there were an awful lot of harriers there. Would it happen elsewhere? It would be good to find out - in a way! I don't think that harrier killing is irrational - but it is illegal. Many criminals have perfectly logical reasons for carrying out their crimes which is why we need laws to protect us - and nature needs laws which are enforced to protect it.
Redkite,
My understanding is that even the research at Langholm Moor shows that harriers can have a very large effect on grouse numbers, essentially eliminating the large surplus population required for shooting. Hence the persecution. There may only be a few at the moment, but if the illegal killing stopped then there would be quite a lot more.
Regarding Richard Benyon's comments to BBOWT, of course the minister is going to say such things to that audience. It's what they want to hear but it doesn't really mean anything without action.
The issue of England copying Scotland's example of bringing in legislation to make land owners and managers responsible for the persecution of birds of prey I am sure will be a difficult one for the Conservatives in the coalition Government because of vested interests. However I do think they must "grasp the nettle on this one". The situation is becoming ridiculous and, as other commentators point out, poor advert for this country. These grouse moor shooting estates make millions of pounds out of their activities. It is just not credible that a few hen harries dotted around grouse moors generally is going to significantly affect that income. Perhaps it might be posible to have a clause in any new legislation on the lines that if hen harriers ever were to become so high in numbers as to significantly affect grouse numbers then there should be a review, but any situation like that would be a long way off at the moment.
By the way I would like to second others in supporting Richard Benyon's decision on the Eagle Owls. I am sure it is the right one. I note that Richard Benyon addressed the audience of the Berks Bucks and Oxon Wildlife Trust AGM last Saturday when he assured the audience the environment and biodiversity went to the heart of all Government Dertartments. Let's therefore hope he takes up the cause of the hen harriers, and other birds of prey in England, but it won't be easy.
The Daily Telegraph's comment is, of course, a farce and best ignored.
redkite