I’ve just seen a copy of a letter from Natural England to the North West Raptor Group – and it beggars belief!
There are some things you need to know about me first. I set this site up initially for the benefit of the North West Raptor Group, for reporting on raptor persecution in the Bowland area. In the months since its inception, it has attracted interest from a much wider area, together with reports of raptor persecution elsewhere in the UK.
I have no personal experience of raptor conservation; as a member of the public I have a strong interest in ‘law and order’, and also in our heritage. I personally find it iniquitous that, although protected by law, birds of prey are persecuted in this land. It isn’t necessary for me to take the word of the members of conservation groups to know this is going on. From time to time I see reports in the news, in the papers, of birds being poisoned, shot, trapped etc., of eggs being taken or destroyed.
When the opportunity for me to help by launching this site came along, I was happy to help. As a result, I’m on a ‘learning curve’ about what goes on.
I should also mention at this point that I have an ‘inside line’ on gamekeeping, and have learned independently about how birds are shot, nests destroyed etc on shooting estates. “Those kites weigh bugger-all” said a gamekeeper to me once, “They’re all feathers … ”
It’s easy to condemn gamekeepers, but you have to remember that if they don’t ‘toe the party line’ and dispose of birds of prey, they’ll soon be out on their ear.
Enough about me, and now on to the purpose of this article. On 19th June 09, the North West Raptor Group – supported by the Northern England Raptor Forum – wrote to Natural England regarding concerns over the situation in the Forest of Bowland region. The following points were covered in their letter:
- the local Police Wildlife Liaison Officer using S19 of the Wildlife and Countryside act as an excuse to visit peregrine and other raptor nests
- the local Police Wildlife Liaison Officer misusing his NE Police Licence to visit Schedule 1 nesting sites
- ‘Best Practice’ was not being followed: nest visits were being carried out by inexperienced and unlicensed individuals at the Police Wildlife Liaison Officer’s behest
- the Police Wildlife Liaison Officer was refusing to work with the North West Raptor Group
- he won’t take advice from experienced workers
- has been bringing in outside ringers to ring peregrines in Bowland without consultation with the peregrine co-ordinator – both before and after being told consultation was required
- the Police Wildlife Liaison Officer ignored expert advice and disturbed eagle owl nests on several occasions over two years – 66% of eggs laid were lost
- a colleague of the Police Wildlife Liaison Officer abusing the law in an attempt to intimidate a member of the North West Raptor Group
A response from the Natural England Wildlife Management and Licensing Team was received yesterday, with the following comments:
- they say they are keen to ensure there is “appropriate liaison”
- they acknowledge the breakdown between the NWRG and the Wildlife Liaison Officer, and say they want to ensure future nest visits are coordinated to prevent unnecessary disturbance
- they Propose a NE member “could act as a peregrine coordinator”, overseeing visits to nests and avoiding duplication – and the Wildlife Liaison Officer is happy with this idea
- the Wildlife Liaison Officer has been reminded of his need to adhere to his Natural England Police Licence conditions
They conclude by writing that “Increasingly, the external perception of the situation with raptors in Bowland is that disturbance by licensed raptor workers is the main problem faced by these birds.”
As a comparative layman in these matters, I have to say I find certain things about the NE response puzzling. For example, they seem to have taken on board the fact that the Wildlife Liaison Officer has been acting inappropriately – they say he has to abide by his NE licence in future. Black mark to the cops there! However, NE’s response to the breakdown in relations between the police and the NWRG is to appoint another level of ‘administration’ – why not simply tell the police to act professionally as they did over the licence matter?
I’m wondering why the police are visiting nests anyway. If there is no crime reported, then they have no need to visit nests. Likewise, why are they bringing in outsiders to ring birds? Why are they bringing in inexperienced unlicensed people to look at peregrine nests? Strangely, when the NWRG reports a suspected crime, the police response is best described as ‘unenthusiastic’!
Now, when you have an established body such as the NWRG examining nests as they have done for near on 40 years, why the sudden necessity for the police to start doing the job (but unenthusiastically when asked to investigate)? The NE police licence doesn’t even cover monitoring – it’s solely for the purposes of investigating crime!
Here comes the really hard bit for me to understand – I’ll repeat the important text: “Increasingly, the external perception of the situation with raptors in Bowland is that disturbance by licensed raptor workers is the main problem faced by these birds.”
Excuse me? – doesn’t all the above show that the Police Wildlife Liaison Officer is unnecessarily visiting nests? The level of monitoring over the years by the NWRG has been constant, the new factor is a wet-behind-the-ears copper with little or no practical experience, stamping all around nests with his big flat feet when he’s only supposed to visit them in the event of a crime!
Explain this to me, somebody. There are less visits to nests on private estates by the NWRG than those on United Utilities estates, yet the success rate on United Utilities estates is higher – as demonstrated by the published results on this site. Doesn’t this indicate the ‘disturbance by licensed raptor workers’ factor alleged by the “external perception” party is, to put it mildly, utter nonsense? Let’s see some real evidence by that “external perception” source!
I’d also like to know why NE think it necessary to appoint a new coordinator to oversee visits to nests: “all those visiting the species first contact [the new coordinator] and that the visit goes ahead only if the particular nest is not already being adequately monitored by other workers.” There is no need for such a role if the police stick to their job and only go to sites when crime is reported!
If this new proposal goes ahead, I think the results will ultimately be to the detriment of the peregrine and raptor population in Bowland. Natural England – you look to me like part of the problem!
This is very worrying information. All this occurs out of the public spotlight and decisions, big ones, are being made by individuals from specific organisations. Surely as a UK resident and along with the rest of us out there we have the right to comment on whats occuring to our natural and national heritage???
Personally I find it hard to understand why bodies like the Police and Natural England are trying to make life hard work for the field workers carrying out this much needed and detailed conservation work to protect England’s birds of prey? It is plainly obvious to any one who reads the detail enclosed on this website there are major issues requiring direct assessment and addressing associated with the criminal persecution of raptors on England’s uplands. And quite frankly myself, along with many other readers for sure, would be backing the conservationists all the way in their assessment of the current situation.
It is very easy to condemn bodies and individuals especially if all involved share different views.
I’ve had dealings with the police on numerous levels and issues. The majority are hard working individuals and make strong teams, actively reducing crime rates to the best of their ability. However I’ve also had dealings with individual police officers whose work practice and conduct left a lot to be desired. I attributed this to 2 reasons. Firstly a lack in training and secondly down to the personality and traits of that individual officer.
Now in everyday life the duties of a police officer, even after training can surely be helped and guided by other senior members of the force. I may be way off the mark here, but what I’m getting round to is raptor protection and the wild life liaison officer attributed to the area of Bowland which this site covers. I am sure the majority of people understand that raptor study and conservation is by no means “straightforward”. Without detailed knowledge and understanding of these magnificent birds it is very easy to either miss them or cause them serious harm, enough to warrant abandoned and failed nesting attempts. That is why I have the utmost confidence in the individuals attributed to this site.
It is blatantly obvious for everyone to see that the field workers who contribute their information to this site have between them years upon years of expertise and experience, in other words they know what they are doing. The reason for detailing this is to highlight the obvious need for an experienced wildlife liaison officer. Surely the officer in question has a golden opportunity to LEARN from the experienced raptor workers who are members of the NWRG? And my god, at least have the decency to work with and take advice from these experts instead of undermining what the are trying to achieve???
It is evident surely that with the licensed field workers and members of the local raptor group contributing to this website, being VOLUNTEERS, their data is completely unbiased. They are not paid, nor do they work for the RSPB. Being independant they do not have to report or deal with issues in a way that masks the truth, for example following a manager’s line to preserve political relationships with estate owners. ( already highlighted by an ex RSPB worker on this site).They are not undertaking scholarships or degrees for a PhD, so no access permission is required from any land owner, meaning that they don’t have to keep estate owners happy by concealing what is really taking place on England’s uplands.
I for one back this website wholeheartedly as it is evident to any one with an iota of intelligence to work out what is really going on on moorlands used to shoot Red Grouse. Sadly the crux of the argument is yet again money. With thousands of pounds of taxpayers money being WASTED by Natural England on their Hen Harrier project, while the situation on our Grouse Moors is getting WORSE not better, isn’t it now time for them to adopt a more PROACTIVE APPROACH to resolving this issue?
It is apparent the NWRG is the only organization involved in raptor conservation in the Bowland area who do not receive public funding, as such they do not have to bow their heads to the estate owners; they just get on with “protecting” these magnificent, yet dangerously rare raptors. Enough of the politics from the big players like the Police, NE and the RSPB, as a hardworking taxpayer and a contributor to the funding of said Hen Harrier project, (not to mention paying said police wages with my tax), Natural England should stop working against the aims of the NWRPG and ACTIVELY BEGIN TO work with this dedicated and experienced conservation group before it is too late. It would be inexcusable, if we lost the fight to preserve the few remaining Hen Harriers in the Forest of Bowland that remain due to political considerations!
I am located approx 100 miles south of the Bowland Forest near Stoke on Trent. However dissapointing news has reached my ears from a close friend who was up in the North West just recently. Could raptor politics please elaborate on the failure of the Eagle Owl nest in Bowland, which I have been told desterted its nest this year at the first attempt following direct intervention of the police?
I think the wider community interested in birds have a right to know what actually went on this year behind closed doors? For example I have now been told the police removed the first clutch of eggs from the nest without a license, resulting in a criminal offence being committed, is this true?
So lets get this right, the North West Raptor Group report a series of license infringements, along with some illegal nest visits promoted apparently by the police (shame on them, who controls this police officer?) coupled with some clear examples of poor practice, and rather than the heavy hand of legitimate enforcement being properly applied NE suggest and implement a solution that bears little relevance to the problems as described.
It’s all well and good to remind the police of their license obligations but will said PC continue to ignore them due to a lack of adequate supervision? This needs emphasizing. Is the new coordinator in a position to ensure that the police follow their license conditions? with the best will in the world he may find this very difficult. Surely he cannot co-ordinate what have been up to now illegal visits by police volunteers, that would be ludicrous.
If these volunteers are to follow procedure and be accompanied by a police officer then the conditions of the police licence apply; namely visits can only be made specifically to investigate or prevent crime after consultation with an appropriate expert. Hence there should be no need for duplicate monitoring visits or any legal basis for them, so there is no need for NWRPG to co-ordinate visits through NE.
Given what has happened so far in Bowland since the arrival of the officer I can see him using this proposal to the disadvantage of the very people who reported the infringements, he will claim that nests are already under police surveillance because of past failures he will claim this as crime prevention and the raptor group loose out in gathering an important set of data. This cannot be fair or reasonable and sets a dangerous precedent that could in time affect all raptor groups going about their important work.
The red herring of too many visits is just that – a red herring. As long as the raptor group follow best practice this claim can and should be refuted by NE as well! The police should be told by NE to follow the law and license conditions and that the area is already adequately covered by NWRPG for monitoring and the volunteers should not be making any nest visits, indeed they should be investigated them for breaking the law and possibly loose any license they had!
Surely the way forward is for NWRPG to continue their monitoring work as before and for the police to liaise with them to get additional information so they have no need to monitor and can deploy their volunteers where they are really needed, in areas with poorer coverage.
Paul Irving
Chairman Yorkshire Dales Upland Bird Study Group
Interesting state of affairs. Up here in Scotland, I am aware that there is an consistent message comming from the SGA:- that raptor workers visit nests too often, cause disturbance and therefore work against the birds best interests. (In my part of the world, when raptor recording, we now make the point of recording “non-visits”, ie those occasions when you monitor a nest from half a mile away etc to be able to clearly demonstrate that nest visits are only a small part of the task.)
Clearly the SGA are pushing for licences to become more restrictive and issued less often…and therefore there is less need for visits….leaving them undisturbed.
I wonder why the WCO has a licence for conservation work in the first place? Is he working on a personal research project? From what has been reported it sounds like he has actually broken the law and should be investigated?
Just read your comments, in particular I would like to clarify your question regarding the Wildlife Liaison Officer’s licence. He does NOT have a Scientific licence enabling him to routinely visit Schedule 1 nesting sites for project or monitoring work. This has been the problem in the past. The officer has been issued with a police licence by Natural England by which he can visit nest sites to undertake activities associated with his police duties i.e, to investigate and prevent wildlife crime only. What he has been doing is using Section 19 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to send unlicensed and inexperienced assistants to nests to check content on his behalf. Nests which I would add are already being monitored by experiences members of the local raptor group – here lies the problem
In that case Natural England must have a clause on his licence which enables him to use named assistants (they can also attach conditions to how assistants opperate).
I would suggest they are asked to remove the permission to use assistants.
As for co-ordination….that role is actually being carried out by Natural England(or should be) by their control over the issue of licences. To avoid a conflict/overlap which could have an impact on the birds, they only issue licences for specific areas and they know who is opperating in those areas and how they plan to opporate.
Is this the same wildlife liason officer who shoots on the estate himself ??
Yes we are given to understand by a gamekeeper the Wildlife Liaison Officer does have shooting interests in the region!
Sounds like the WLO is being far from impartial.
I wonder if he pays the same rate for a day’s shooting as the other “guests.” £120/brace would make a significant dent in a typical WLO salary. Perhaps it’s a gift or gratuity ? Sounds to me like the impartiality of the WLO has been compromised.
I’ve certainly lost confidence in the Lancashire Police’s Service’s ability to investigate wildlife crime.
Perhaps worth bringing this news to a wider audience.
How can we have any confidence in a WLO who has shooting interests within Bowland. Not only does this conflict of interest bring the Lancashire Police Force into disrepute it turns them into a laughing stock.
Interesting to note from the Lancashire Constabulary’s website Steve Finnigan, the Chief Constable “is a keen sportsman”
this is just summing up what ive said elsewhere, to many people interfering with wild birds nesting, there is no recent justifiable reasons for ringing or visiting nests of birds like peregrines. we know so much about them what can we possably hope to learn by further intrusions into thier world? NOTHING WORTHWHILE! protect from afar i say, let them get on with it, leave them alone. raptors are the most over zealously watched and disturbed group of wildlife in the uk today, with very little justifiable reason.
There is a very good reason why peregrine nests should and must be regularly visited during the breeding season. If this important field work was not undertaken how would anyone know which nests had been destroyed or persecuted. Its no use saying this work can be undertaken from a suitable distance because at many sites, particularly ground nesting, the site must be visited to examine the content.
I can give you an example, last year at 3 peregrine nests on one grouse moor each nest had been persecuted. Two nests had lost 3 small chicks each, the last nest lost two eggs blown out of the nest just as they were hatching by a helicopter brought in by the estate to ferry in fencing posts and wire within 50 m of the nest.
If nests were not checked persecution would go completely undetected and un reported.
i agree peregrine nests need to be closely monitored, but the fact that we now have so many “marginal” sites like ground nests indicates that they are now at saturation levels previously unknown in this country from ever before. all the decent traditional nest sites are either taken or unsuitable now due to rock climbing etc…However i still fail to see what the value of deliberatly disturbing them to ring. weigh and measure them is? this information has been gathered for years, surely we dont need to keep up this level of legal disturbance just for a B T O ringers “hobby” ? someone please justify this level of disturbance to me! i cant honestly see a good reason anymore.
Nests can be checked and monitored without the “legal” intrusion imposed.
I cant speak for your particular cases but I do know of some ‘licensed’ people who stretch the limits of their licences purely for their own benefit. If, as the law states, it is illegal to disturb them at the nest, how does a licence reduce this disturbance???
I agree that sites must be monitored and ground sites are the exception but I disagree that licensed workers should feel they are able to come and go as they please, not saying that they all do.
I find it ludicrous that an experienced Raptor worker/recorder would find it necessary to go to the nest of a breeding bird more than 3 times, 4 times at the outside. First visit to ascertain birds on territory, second visit to record nest contents at the well sat egg stage, third visit to prove likely fledging or fledging success and the number of young likely to fledge or have fledged. The only time a fourth visit should be necessary would be when the young are at the right age for ringing, (assuming they are to be ringed), our group stopped ringing long since. I cannot see where it would be necessary to go to the nest to prove persecution unless you have proof or strongly suspect that the birds have been interfered with. If you only suspect persecution then observation of the nest site from a safe distance would ensure you are not the cause of the birds ultimate demise yourselves and would eliminate you from being blamed in return; it would soon tell you whether the birds were still in occupation. If you suspect strongly or have proof that certain individuals are or are likely to persecute the birds then you must report them to the Police and the RSPB, (not the WLO, they are useless at best). Make sure you let everyone who is involved know that you suspect these persons, write letters of complaint against these individuals to the land/estate owner, not the manager, send copies to the press and post them on these forums. Let Sky News know what’s happening.
nirofo.