I’ve blogged several times about the so-called “brood management” of hen harriers, including setting out two big unanswered questions and 25 more specific ones raised by the idea of brood management.

To be honest, I’d rather hoped not to have to write another blog on brood management this soon. I’d much rather be talking about the positive work RSPB and our partners are doing for hen harriers, for example through our Life project on the species.

But the Hawk and Owl Trust have now elaborated on their apparent plans for a Brood Management Scheme, with two pieces on their website covering the “conservation” and “science” around the idea, so it feels necessary to comment.

It’s worth saying I have a huge amount of respect for the Hawk and Owl Trust and a lot of the work they’ve done over the years. While we all make bad judgements from time to time, in this case the consequences could be extremely serious.

I also think it is unedifying that Defra have left it to another conservation organisation to try to justify a brood management scheme.

This is not the way to instill confidence from those sceptical that the brood management scheme is anything other than a sop to those running the most intensive driven grouse moors.

There is one section on the Hawk and Owl Trust website that exemplifies all that is wrong with this scheme.

“The six point plan has been agreed in principle by all parties but has yet to be ratified as one member believes that the brood management trial should be delayed until Hen Harrier numbers have recovered to a pre-determined number.

This is a worthy but sadly unrealistic objective, as it is not always understood or appreciated that Hen Harriers, as colonial or semi-colonial nesters, will become concentrated on a small number of individual moors. The fact of this concentration places these birds at huge risk of further persecution.”

I object to the implication that a brood management scheme is essential to prevent further illegal killing of birds of prey.

Let’s call it what it is. The brood management scheme is a persecution avoidance scheme. And its supporters primarily come from the shooting community including the Moorland Association, the Countryside Alliance and the National Gamekeepers’ Association. Its only support from the conservation sector has been the Game and Wildlife and Conservation Trust and now the Hawk and Owl Trust – an organisation that was not part of the talks which have taken place over the past two years.

These proponents and especially Defra will have to do more to explain how it be justified legally.

The brood management scheme is a project involving a European protected species. As such it would be subject to a series of tests under European law. These aren’t arbitrary bureaucratic tests – they are the embodiment of smart nature conservation decision-making.

The first test is to demonstrate that there are no alternative ways of meeting the objectives of the project.

There are clearly alternative ways of stopping illegal killing either through better enforcement or through the proven technique of diversionary feeding.

There are no imperative reasons of overriding public interest for intervening in this way. What is so peculiar is that Defra itself recognises that the alternative measures are necessary and appropriate components of the draft Hen Harrier action plan. By including these measures, it has essentially shot its own fox – or should I say, grouse.

Even if the alternatives test was somehow past, I struggle to see how it could be justified to issue the necessary licence under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

I could offer a point by point rebuttal (I really could - I have a piece of paper sitting on my desk that does exactly that) but I cannot see how that helps anyone.

I don’t want the Hawk and Owl Trust to be set up as the fall guy by being Defra’s champion of an ill-conceived and potentially unlawful scheme.

For now, I simply want to reiterate publicly what I have said privately on many occasions. Let’s get on with the non-contentious parts of the Hen Harrier Action Plan and consult more widely on the concept of the brood management scheme.

  • I think your title of this blog Martin is well chosen.

    This whole business seems to have a touch of "the mad house" about it. Defra should be repeating again and again that first and foremost grouse moor owners MUST obey the law. Other business operstions have to do so so why not grouse moor businesses? Companies like BP must operate within the law and if they do not and they harm the environment then the consequences for them can be pretty dire as we have seen in the USA. So why should operating a grouse moor as a business be any different? It should not be.

    The way ahead should be quite clear, grouse moor owners obey the law. As and when Hen Harriers start to return in reasonable numbers to grouse moors then on a case by case basis, if there is a particular problem with a large number of hen harriers present, then measures could be considered for aleviating the situation while not harming the hen harriers.

    It just beggars belief that the Government is not pursuing this line. It really does have the wiff about it of "one law for the rich and one for the poor". As for Defra's approach to the  

    H & O Trust, almost behind the back of the RSPB, and this Trust's response, it does seem to have another wiff of, how might the situation be aleviated in favour of the grouse moor owners when actually there are virtually no hen harriers on grouse moors.

    Keep up the line the RSPB is pursuing, Martin, it is the right one and will win through in the end.  

  • Thoroughly agree with everything you say, Martin, although I'd alternatively characterise it as a harrier disposal service - addressing human-wildlife conflict by removing the wildlife. The Hawk and Owl Trust seem to have dismissed the prospect of harriers coexisting with a more restrained, respectful sort of game management, which could quite probably be achieved through diversionary feeding of harriers to lighten their pressure of red grouse.