The DEFRA Hen Harrier Emergency Action Plan Year 1 Assessment

Similar documents
Launched 22 April 2013:

PEREGRINE FALCONS. Guidelines on Urban Nest Sites and the Law. Based on a document produced by the Metropolitan Police

JOINT BVA-BSAVA-SPVS RESPONSE TO THE CONSULTATION ON PROPOSALS TO TACKLE IRRESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERSHIP

BASC Code of Practice for the Use of a Dog Below Ground in England and Wales

PUBLIC SPACES PROTECTION ORDERS DOG CONTROLS CULTURE AND LEISURE (COUNCILLOR PETER BRADBURY)

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Identifying Best Practice Domestic Cat Management in Australia

Scottish Natural Heritage Diversionary feeding of hen harriers on grouse moors. a practical guide

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Explanatory Memorandum to the Mutilations (Permitted Procedures) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM TO THE DOCKING OF WORKING DOGS TAILS (ENGLAND) REGULATIONS No. [XXXX]

Q1 The effectiveness of the Act in reducing the number of out of control dogs/dog attacks in Scotland.

The hen harrier in England

International Declaration of Responsibilities to Cats

The World League for Protection of Animals Inc Working for the rights and wellbeing of animals, both native and non-native, since 1935

International Declaration of Responsibilities to Cats

Information Guide. Do you know dog law?

Report to ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING & REGULATIONS Committee for decision

PE1561/J. Ned Sharratt Public Petitions Clerks Room T3.40 The Scottish Parliament Edinburgh EH99 1SP. 11 December 2015.

Please could you tell me how many reports of Hare Coursing you have received in the last four years? ( )

Woodcock: Your Essential Brief

A Bycatch Response Strategy

1.0 Introduction. activity: A critical review of the literature. Health & Place

Information Guide. Do you know dog law?

Kennel Club Response to the Home Affairs Committee s call for evidence on the draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.

The Western Australian Farmers Federation Inc. Wool and Meat Section. Australian Animal Welfare Standards and Guidelines Sheep

R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER D.16

Market Trends influencing the UK egg sector

Islay Sustainable Goose Management Strategy. Baseline information summary document

CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN

Police and Crime Plan Priority: Protecting from Harm: Animal Cruelty and Crimes Involving Animals. Title: Animal Cruelty

Boda Wennol. Kite monitoring results for 2017 ** Update on Kestrels ** Welsh Kites in Ireland - How did They Fare? **WKT Plans for 2018

2015 No. 108 ANIMALS, ENGLAND. The Microchipping of Dogs (England) Regulations 2015

What do we need to do if rabies is reintroduced into an area after a period of absence?

Causes of stray animals and consequences

Third Party Sales of Puppies and Kittens

Pets and Animals Policy

Natural England reports annually to the Upland Stakeholder Forum on progress with all aspects of the plan including the Brood Management Trial.

WHY A BAN IS THE ONLY OPTION FOR THIRD PARTY PUPPY SALES

EU Programmes for Animal Welfare in the European region

Key Stage 3 Lesson Plan Debating Animal Welfare Laws

RSPCA SA v Ross and Fitzpatrick Get the Facts

Acting Inspections and Enforcement Manager Mark Vincent, Team Leader Animal Control

ICAO PUBLIC KEY DIRECTORY (ICAO PKD) 2007 ANNUAL REPORT TO PARTICIPANTS

XII. LEGISLATIVE POLICY STATEMENTS

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ARISING FROM THE RESCUE OF ANIMALS AFFECTED BY A NATURAL DISASTER

2015 No. 138 DOGS, ENGLAND AND WALES. The Dangerous Dogs Exemption Schemes (England and Wales) Order 2015

Guidelines to Reduce Sea Turtle Mortality in Fishing Operations

1.0 Introduction. activity: A critical review of the literature. Health & Place

The voice of the countryside. Hounds and hound showing

33400 POLICY JOU POLICE DOGS USE OF FORCE, OPERATIONAL USE AND DEPLOYMENT

LEGISLATURE

The grey partridges of Nine Wells: A five-year study of a square kilometre of arable land south of Addenbrooke s Hospital in Cambridge

EXTENSION PROGRAMMES

Assessment Panel mapping document for

Regulating the scientific use of animals taken from the wild Implementation of Directive 2010/63/EU

Proposed Pet Shop (Licensing) (Scotland) Bill

Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) Decision notice

For publication. The Anti-social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 Designation of the Public Spaces Protection Order (Dog control) (HW1140)

RHETORIC 49. A Born Killer? Leah Johnson

Human Conflict and Animal Welfare Student Activities

GUIDE TO THE CONSULTATION REGULATION IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE AUSTRALIAN ANIMAL WELFARE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES CATTLE

NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND MENTAL HYGIENE

Northern Ireland Branch. The veterinary profession s manifesto for Northern Ireland A call to action for politicians and policymakers

Recommendations of the Greyhound Reform Panel

international news RECOMMENDATIONS

Travelling abroad with your dog

Thank You For What You Did For Animals In 2014!

Questions and Answers on the Community Animal Health Policy

- litter bin policies, strategies and procedures. Briefing January Key issues

The grey partridges of Nine Wells. A study of one square kilometre of arable land south of Addenbrooke s Hospital in Cambridge

Oregon Wolf Management Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, January 2016

AVIAN STRATEGY FOR HOBBYIST LIVESTOCK AND PET BIRDS Compiled by THE COMMITTEE FOR BIRD STRATEGY

LEON COUNTY Reference: Reference: COMPREHENSIVE STATE NATIONAL EMERGENCY CEMP RESPONSE PLAN MANAGEMENT PLAN ESF 17 ANNEX 17 ANIMAL ISSUES

The Disability Discrimination Act 1995

Third Annual Conference on Animals and the Law

I am writing on behalf of the NSW Division of the Australian Veterinary Association and the Centre for Companion Animals in Community (CCAC).

RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANIMAL CONTROL AND POUND FUNDING IN OTTAWA-CARLETON

OVER 30 MONTH CATTLE SLAUGHTER RULE (OTM Rule)

14th Conference of the OIE Regional Commission for Africa. Arusha (Tanzania), January 2001

L A N G U A G E THE LANGUAGE OF ADVOCACY

The Linacre Cats Protection Project 2015 final report

Community Cats and the Ecosystem

Veterinary Statutory Bodies: Their roles and importance in the good governance of Veterinary Services

MIDDLE EAST REGIONAL ANIMAL WELFARE STRATEGY

Longitudinal Evaluation of the Regional Learning Partnership

Alberta Agriculture s Role and Sheep Welfare in Alberta

DOGS BY-LAW By-law No. 5 OF 2018

1 INTRODUCTION 2 GENERAL

Proposal for a Regulation on veterinary medicinal products

Developing the proposed NSW Companion Animal Legislation

Higher National Unit specification: general information. Veterinary Nursing: Companion Animal Health and Welfare

Further memorandum submitted by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Recognition of Export Controls and Certification Systems for Animals and Animal Products. Guidance for Competent Authorities of Exporting Countries

Hooded Plover Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act Nomination

Report to the Raleigh Parks, Recreation and Greenway Advisory Board: Off-leash Dog Areas. Background

Rural Crime News 5 11 September

THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF PORT HOPE BY-LAW NO. 48/2015

Dogs Trust Pawlicy Document

Dog Population Management Veterinary Oversight. Presented by Emily Mudoga & Nick D'Souza

CONSULTATION ON THE REVIEW OF THE NON-COMMERCIAL MOVEMENT OF PET ANIMALS ORDER 2011 (AS AMENDED)

Transcription:

The DEFRA Hen Harrier Emergency Action Plan Year 1 Assessment Background The Hen Harrier Circus cyaneus is listed on annex 1 of the EC Birds Directive, is a Red-Listed Species of Conservation Concern in the UK and is fully protected in the UK under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981. The species also has the dubious honour of being England s most persecuted bird of prey. The issue of persecution has been very well documented, including the following statements: There is compelling evidence that persecution continues, both during and following the breeding season. Persecution continues to limit Hen Harrier recovery in England. A Future for the Hen Harrier in England? Natural England 2008. The Hen Harrier is facing extinction as a breeding species in England. Operation Artemis [The Police response to Hen Harrier Persecution 2004] The facts behind these references still apply today. Hen Harrier persecution is a criminal offence, punishable by imprisonment. Despite this, Defra and Natural England s preferred method of addressing this criminality has always been firstly, to treat the problem as a conflict between Hen Harriers and Red Grouse. This is not the case. The problem lies entirely with individuals within the driven grouse shooting industry who have a total disregard for the law. Secondly, they continue to try to reach an accommodation with those responsible for the persecution by supporting a call for a limit on the breeding population by the industry as a reward for stopping the killing. The prospect of the Government negotiating with criminals over the terms and conditions under which they will stop their criminal activities is an anathema to conservationists and all right minded people alike. Nonetheless they have ploughed on with a let s negotiate philosophy. Decades of debate and dialogue produced nothing. Undeterred the Government [Defra and Natural England], conservationists [including the RSPB and Raptor Workers representing NERF] and the grouse shooting lobbyists [Moorland Association, Countryside Alliance and BASC et al] embarked on a new round of discussions facilitated by the Environment Council. During this process independent research undertaken by some of the UK s leading bird of prey academics concluded that there is sufficient suitable habitat in England to support in excess of 300 breeding pairs. However; the five-year average, 2011-2016, reveals that there were just 3 successful pairs per year. In 2013 there were no breeding pairs at all in England; the devastating prediction made by Operation Artemis was realised. The cause remains persecution by criminals employed in the grouse shooting industry. 1

Several more years of fruitless discussions passed; the killing continued and there was no progress made towards ending persecution, despite the fact that the conservation groups were willing, albeit through gritted teeth at times, to compromise on several of the suggested proposals put forward. Regrettably the shooting lobby always wanted more and more concessions. Whether the Hen Harrier Dialogue ever had any chance of succeeding or whether it was simply a shooting lobby filibustering exercise is open to conjecture. Whatever the answer to that question disappointingly the Dialogue ended in failure although in reality that outcome came as a surprise to no one on the conservation side of the process. Undeterred by years of failure to achieve a positive outcome through discussion, in 2014 Defra started the process all over again, this time as a sub-group of the Upland Stakeholder Group. Unfortunately NERF, despite being a PAW Partner, a member of the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group and participants in the Environment Council s Hen Harrier Dialogue, were refused a seat on this Group. After two years consultation in January 2016 Defra published the eagerly awaited Joint Action Plan to Increase the English Hen Harrier Population. The Defra Hen Harrier Plan The Plan sets out a series of six actions that would lead to a successful outcome and indicated the criteria which would be used to confirm that success had been achieved. With some caveats NERF both welcomes and supports four of the six action points. Action 1 monitoring populations in England & UK NERF broadly supports this action. Historically the vast majority of Hen Harriers in England breed in the northern uplands. NERF members have considerable experience, over many decades, in monitoring Hen Harriers at both their breeding sites and on their winter roosting grounds. NERF s field based observations play a major part in understanding population dynamics. The Plan refers to continuation of monitoring of Hen Harriers yet it makes no mention of the invaluable, voluntary contribution that Raptor Workers make to this process. This is a mistake and that contribution should be acknowledged, not to assuage the sensitivities of Raptor Workers but to ensure that all of the conservation NGOs have a positive input to the monitoring process. The Plan only refers to the contribution that Natural England volunteers make. Whilst they fulfil a very valuable role the small number of individuals engaged in monitoring cannot cover the thousands of square kilometres of habitat available to Hen Harriers. NERF groups make a significant contribution to essential surveying and monitoring. Action 2 Diversionary Feeding NERF broadly supports this action. 2

Diversionary / supplementary feeding has been trialled extensively and shown to be successful in reducing predation of Red Grouse chicks during the breeding season. Whilst some Hen Harriers readily take to supplementary feeding this is not the case for all pairs. Nonetheless where grouse moor owners perceive that there will be an unacceptable negative commercial impact by Hen Harriers on Red Grouse numbers they should be encouraged to implement the scheme. Regrettably it appears that some members of the grouse shooting industry are less than enthusiastic about the scheme. It is clear from the evidence that diversionary feeding could reduce predation of Red Grouse chicks which will therefore be of commercial benefit to grouse moor owners. Grouse moor owners receive 10s and in many cases 100s of thousands of pounds in grant aid from the state annually. We are constantly told by the grouse shooting organisations that the industry is vital to the rural economy valued at c 67.7 million annually [Savills]. Diversionary feeding only benefits the interests of the grouse moor owners, on commercial grouse shoots. We are told that it is done to mitigate against financial loss. On non-commercial, friends and family, shoots there is no commercial loss. Yet in both cases the funding for the scheme is borne by the tax payer at the current cost of 1150 per Hen Harrier brood provisioned. Grouse shooting is a minority sport undertaken for profit or pleasure and NERF believes supplementary feeding should be regarded as a quite modest business on-cost funded by the beneficiaries of the scheme and not by the wider general public through taxation. Action 3 Work with the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group to analyse monitoring information and build the intelligence picture. NERF is a member of the RPPDG and fully supports this action. The National Wildlife Crime Unit has been engaged with this priority since 2004. It is incumbent on all organisations, both Governmental and NGOs, who are engaged in the prevention and detection of Bird of Prey persecution to assist the National Wildlife Crime Unit and local Wildlife Crime Officers. Bird of Prey persecution continues apace and the plight of Hen Harriers in England remains unchanged despite being a priority species. It is clear that more needs to be done by the RPPDG. NERF has concerns that the continued downward pressure on policing budgets will push wildlife protection further down the list of local policing priorities. Several of the NERF members Groups already have little or no contact with nominated Wildlife Crime Officers. Further financial constraints will only exacerbate the problem and do little to protect Hen Harriers from persecution. In relation to Hen Harrier persecution it is clear that the greatest potential source of information is to be found from within the shooting industry. NERF expects the representatives of the industry to work tirelessly with their members to assist both local Police Forces and the NWCU to build the intelligence picture and assist with prosecuting offenders when they are put before the courts. 3

NERF proposes that members of the RPPDG who cannot demonstrate compliance with this action should forfeit their position on the Group. Action 4 Nest and winter roost protection. NERF fully supports this action. NERF members undertake hundreds of hours of self-funded monitoring of Hen Harriers annually. In spring and early summer the uplands are surveyed for prospecting and breeding birds. In the event that a breeding attempt is located NERF members have been one of several groups who provide nest protection. Northern England sees an influx of Hen Harriers in early autumn and NERF members continue roost monitoring and protection throughout the winter until the birds return to their breeding grounds. NERF has undertaken these activities for decades and the work will continue. The current Defra Upland Stakeholder Action Plan specifically states "Raptor groups should be able to support any necessary action in the field at nest and roost sites". Given that the MA have signed up to the Action Plan then we assume that respective local RSGs will be welcomed and involved in nest site protection and monitoring on grouse moor estates. Action 5 Southern reintroduction NERF has serious concerns with this action and cannot support it under the current circumstances. On completion this action is estimated to cost a total of 515k, comprising of 74k for the preparatory stage and a further 441k for the actual release. Sceptics could be forgiven for thinking that this estimate will increase over time. In these times of severe austerity, which continues to affect Natural England, NERF believes that this funding would be better spent on persecution prevention and law enforcement in the Hen Harrier s heartland in the Northern Uplands. There is a presumption implicit in this action that the south west is a safe zone for breeding Hen Harriers. However; there is doubt amongst Raptor Workers that this is in fact the case. It should be remembered that the satellite tagged bird named Burt disappeared in that area. Action 6 Trialling a Brood Management Scheme NERF opposes this action. There is sufficient habitat in England to support in excess of 300 breeding pairs of Hen Harriers. Both the Bowland and the North Pennine Moors SPAs are designated for 13 and 11 pairs of 4

Hen harriers respectively. Both continually fail to meet these designations and the cause of that failure is predominantly persecution by individuals connected with grouse moor management. Hen Harriers nests are very well protected and the risks associated with that aspect of the breeding season have for all intents and purposes been eliminated. The main threat to adults and fledglings occurs away from the nest, especially during the winter roosting period. Removing eggs / chicks from nests only to return fledglings to the moors will do nothing to prevent persecution. History shows us that the young birds will join the disappeared once they leave the fells in late summer. Despite assurances to the contrary, brood management will not increase the Hen Harrier population unless persecution stops throughout the year. Brood management may reduce the predation of Red Grouse chicks during the breeding season. However this will only benefit the commercial grouse shooting industry, which as we already know from Savills data is worth 67.7 million annually. The proposal to introduce brood management is tantamount to Defra and Natural England accepting that Hen Harrier persecution is out of control and that they, and the Police, are powerless to change the situation. Brood management is the fall-back position which puts the grouse shooting industry in the driving seat when it comes to the fate of Hen Harriers in the Northern Uplands. The projected cost for the five year trial is 875k, to be paid for from general taxation. Within the trial Defra does not indicate either timescales or population numbers in their success criteria which NERF considers to be a major omission. Instead Defra states that success will be achieved when: The Hen Harrier has a self-sustaining and well dispersed breeding population in England across a range of habitats including a viable population in the Special Protected Areas designated for Hen Harrier, and, The Hen Harrier population coexists with local business interests and its presence contributes to a thriving rural economy. These are rather nebulous measurements to the point of being not fit for purpose. The second measure of success places the burden for the failure to coexist with local business interests, which is a euphemism for driven grouse shooting, upon Hen Harriers. In reality the failure is the reverse of that statement. Driven grouse shooting consistently demonstrates that it is the industry that refuses to coexist with Hen Harriers. It is NERF s belief that: the scheme is ill conceived in its current form it is unlikely to benefit the Hen Harrier population unless persecution ends the money, 1.39 million for the whole project, could, and should, be spent on enforcing current legislation the brood management plan, which is due to start in 2017, should be abandoned until the Northern Uplands contain 25% of the predicted carrying capacity along with 5

tangible evidence that persecution has ceased. At that point the proposal could be reintroduced for consideration Conclusion At the end of its first year The Joint Action Plan has demonstrably failed. There were only three successful nests in 2016, none of which were on grouse moors. Several of the satellite tagged birds from the 2016 cohort are dead and two are known to have been shot. What has happened to the remainder is a matter of speculation. The Defra Joint Action Plan is, in NERF s view, unworkable. It should be abandoned forthwith and the funding, from the public purse diverted to monitoring and law enforcement. Several other options have been proposed by conservationists that would be beneficial for protecting this iconic species. The introduction of vicariously liability for grouse moor owners and managers, the introduction of licensing for grouse moors and the banning of grouse shooting have been suggested. All of these proposals have been dismissed by Defra with little or no debate leaving NERF members with the suspicion that the Government has no appetite to effectively fulfil their legal obligations towards the EU designated Special Protection Areas and more generally to prevent and detect crime to eliminate Hen Harrier persecution. 6