End of Season Raptor Report 2009, Forest of Bowland.

 

The 2009 season has been very eventful and in many respects a very disappointing one for so called “protected” raptors within the area of Lancashire’s Forest of Bowland. Sadly, and somewhat surprisingly, we have to report that the most unsettling aspect of the season’s events has been the ongoing actions of the Area’s Police Wildlife Crime Officer (WCO) in his continual attempts to undermine raptor protection work in the region, including that being undertaken by licensed members of the local Raptor Study Group. In particular the WCO has seemingly made a determined bid to discredit one of the regions most respected and experienced raptor workers, Terry Pickford. Earlier this year Mr Pickford even faced the prospect of having his vehicle illegally seized after this WCO, using the Police Reform Act 2002, asked a second officer to issue Mr. Pickford with two Section S59 warning notices for what was alleged to be ‘inappropriate use of his vehicle’. Following a complaint to the police by Mr. Pickford, the Section S59 notice issued was subsequently withdrawn and Mr. Pickford received an unreserved apology from Lancashire Constabulary. If readers are confused or have no idea how the police attempt to use the Police Reform Act 2002 as in this instance, you can learn more here.

Mr. Pickford’s complaint together with an additional complaint sent in to the Lancashire Constabulary by a second independent person into the activities of the WCO in question, is currently the subject of an internal police investigation, and we are therefore unable to comment further until these investigations have been completed.

Unfortunately, Mr Pickford’s problems did not stop with the botched attempt by the police to confiscate his vehicle. Earlier in the spring Mr. Pickford, who has been working to conserve and protect birds of prey in the Forest of Bowland for over 40 years, had his concessionary vehicle access permit withdrawn by United Utilities Bowland Estate management preventing him from taking his vehicle onto the United Utilities Estate enabling him to monitor breeding raptors. The company also rescinded his authority to ring Peregrine Falcons on their moorland property in Bowland despite the fact that Mr Pickford has been ringing Peregrines in the area for the British Trust for |Ornithology since 1986, totally at his own expense. The question therefore needs to be asked “Why has Mr Pickford been singled out for such treatment, and what exactly is the section of the UU Field Protocol that he is supposed to have breached which merits such treatment without any right of appeal”? When the facts are examined they simply do not stand up to scrutiny. The truth is, the allegations made by United Utilities that Mr. Pickford did breach the terms of the Field Protocol are totally without foundation of any sort.

The true facts are as follows: -

In December 2008 two other raptor workers, both also signatories to the United Utilities Field Protocol contacted Mr. Pickford requesting him to approach United Utilities to ask the Company to investigate a perceived breach of their Protocol. These two men informed Mr. Pickford of their concerns that contractors cutting heather on behalf of the Company on moorland in the Croasdale valley Nr. Slaidburn were operating too close to a historic Hen Harrier nesting site, thus breaching the UU Protocol which stipulates that heather should not be burned or cut within 100 metres of a known Hen Harrier nesting site which has been occupied within the past 5-years. The Protocol further states, that any concerns expressed by Protocol signatories must be directed to a specifically named member of staff working from the United Utilities Forest of Bowland Estate Office. On this occasion however, the nominated individual was on holiday when Mr.Pickford attempted to make contact with him. Because he considered the matter to be too urgent to leave until he returned, Mr. Pickford decided to contact the Natural England Hen Harrier Coordinator asking him to investigate the circumstances of the heather cutting and notify his findings to the Company on behalf of the two raptor workers who had originally brought this matter to his notice.

Not only is this Natural England Regional Hen Harrier Coordinator the appointed Government representative for this species, he too is also a signatory of the United Utilities Protocol. It is therefore hard to understand why it was construed by UU that by acting in this way (in a bid to prevent yet another precious Hen Harrier site being destroyed) Mr. Pickford had breached the terms of the Protocol – especially when he was simply acting on behalf of two concerned fellow fieldworkers who were not treated in the same manner by United Utilities! Since they and Mr Pickford only had the welfare of one of Britain’s most threatened bird species at heart, it is difficult not to reach the conclusion that someone had a hidden agenda for using this event as an excuse for banning Mr Pickford from UU land or using a vehicle there. The question is ‘who’ and ‘why’?

Perhaps the answer came when in March 2009 Mr. Pickford found himself in yet more trouble when United Utilities advised him that the company had received a number of complaints regarding his conduct including a complaint from the Wildlife Crime Officer following a Protocol meeting hosted by the Company. It appeared the WCO had resented being challenged at this meeting by Mr. Pickford who had asked the officer to explain his inappropriate use of his police powers and the apparent disregard of the terms of his Natural England Scientific Licence conditions when visiting protected Schedule 1 nesting sites. It should be noted that all Scientific Licences issued by Natural England to Wildlife Crime Officers only permit their use by an officer when actually investigating or preventing wildlife crime. They do not allow police officers to visit protected nest sites for routine monitoring purposes – as was the habit of the WLCO for Lancashire! Even worse, this officer expressed his determination to disturb the nests in order to mark the eggs of specially protected and sensitive bird species irrespective of whatever advice he was given by people with decades of experience in these matters. Both of these were actions to which his licence did not apply, and by acting in this manner, the officer was in fact actually himself breaking the law! When replying to Mr. Pickford’s perfectly reasonable challenge, the officer stated he had read the conditions of his Natural England Licence but had ignored them! We now understand that Natural England have contacted the WCO for Lancashire reminding him of the need to adhere to the conditions of his police licence, thereby fully supporting what Mr. Pickford had told him.

This then strongly suggests the true reason why United Utilities would wish to see the back of Mr. Pickford. By his removal from the Estate, perhaps United Utilities consider such action will ultimately silence his outspoken criticism of the level of nest failure and persecution of protected birds of prey on the Company’s Bowland estates. Ever since the Company leased several areas of heather moorland for game shooting beginning in 2000, there has been a noticeable increase in the level of failed Peregrine and Hen Harrier nesting attempts on the area of moorland owned by the company in Bowland. Indeed Mr. Pickford has regularly highlighted these failures at previous Protocol meetings, pointing out in particular the reduced productivity of several specific Peregrine sites located on moorlands owned by United Utilities. In three instances highlighted, Peregrine nests have either lost full or partial broods of young or their productivity has been significantly reduced, resulting in a number of nests producing a single chick year after year, despite food availability in the territories remaining very high.

Unfortunately there is little doubt that concerns raised by Mr. Pickford and his Raptor Worker colleagues to United Utilities regarding the failure of specific raptor nesting sites on Company property throughout the last decade, are either ignored or totally dismissed. As an example of this, the expert advice given to the Company that under no circumstances should this year’s Eagle Owl nest be disturbed in order to allow any eggs to be marked by the police (ostensibly to prevent theft) was once again totally ignored. It therefore came as no surprise to the experienced and concerned fieldworkers, when, as predicted, the consequent search for the nest resulted in the desertion of 3 eggs. It appears that for some reason, the company would much rather disregard any expert advice they receive, preferring instead to accede to the wishes of the WCO and record any nest failure on their property to be a consequence of ‘natural circumstances’ rather than ‘deliberate human persecution’, thereby hopefully preventing harmful publicity. Even worse, at the end of this season a statement has been made that such failures are attributable to overdue disturbance from fieldworkers – the very people who spend countless hours on the moors in all weathers, and at their own expense and time, to ensure that the Forest of Bowland continues to be one of the strongholds of birds of prey in the UK! This is frankly scandalous and does those culpable (both individual and organisational) no credit whatsoever.

The table below shows the correlation between nest percentage failure/successes on areas of moorland in the Forest of Bowland owned by United Utilities and those estates in private ownership. The details clearly show that on the private estates, moorland areas used for grouse shooting have a much increased percentage failure of nesting sites. From observations undertaken this year at each nesting territory we can only conclude that these failures were the result of direct human persecution. Our findings are in line with Natural England’s published opinion relating to the present failure of so many Hen Harriers nests on England’s heather moorlands; the stated assessment for these failures given is that persecution is the main contributing factor.

Interestingly, 2009 was the first year United Utilities did not provide details of the exact location of active Peregrine Falcon nests on their Bowland Estate, to their two shooting tenants. Could it really be coincidence that percentage productivity at sites 1 and 2, as shown on the table below, were 100% and 75 % respectfully this year? For more than a decade both these sites have either consistently failed to produce any young at all, or have only managed to rear a single chick. This year’s result from each nest location -kept secret for the first time – appears to support what Mr. Pickford has been telling United Utilities all these years without any success! Perhaps these high productivity results will be a wake up call and a stark reminder of the justification for a need to pay attention in the future to the valid views of experts, experts that the Company are seemingly eager to dismiss. Why?

Peregrine Falcon Eyries:

Percentage Fledging Successes 2009

Forest of Bowland Estates,

Lancashire.

PRIVATE LAND NOT SHOT

Site No.	No. Eggs Laid	No. Eggs Hatched	No. Chicks fledged	Fledging Rate %
1	3	2	2	66

FORMER GROUSE MOOR NOT SHOT

Site No.	No. Eggs Laid	No. Eggs Hatched	No. Chicks fledged	Fledging Rate %
2	3	2	2	66

UPLAND GROUSE MOORS – SHOT

Site No.	No. Eggs Laid	No. Eggs Hatched	No. Chicks fledged	Fledging Rate %
3	4	4	2	50
4	4	4	2	50
5	3	1	0	0
6	3	1	0	0
7	2	0	0	0
8	3	2	2	66

UNITED UTILITIES ESTATES

Site No.	No. Eggs Laid	No. Eggs Hatched	No. Chicks fledged	Fledging Rate %
1	4	4	4	100
2	4	3	3	75
3	4	1	1	25
4	4	4	3	75
5*	1	0	0	0
6*	3	1	1	33
7	4	3	3	75

*Site 5 United Utilities, Due to heavy rain this pair deserted their nest containing a single egg, relocating to site 3 where the pair laid an additional 4 eggs but only fledged a single chick. This area of UU moorland is leased for game shooting.

*Site 6 United Utilities, consistently productivity low at this nesting location. In 2007, 3 chicks disappeared from nest. In 2008 the larger of two chicks vanished from the nest at three weeks old. This area of UU moorland is leased for game shooting.

Hen Harrier:

Percentage Fledging Successes 2009

Forest of Bowland Estates,

Lancashire.

PRIVATE GROUSE MOOR – SHOT

Site No.	No. Eggs Laid	No. Eggs Hatched	No. Chicks fledged	Fledging Rate %
1	6	5	5	83

Despite running for the last 8 years, Natural England’s Hen Harrier Recovery Project has failed to deliver any worthwhile results. Apart from the single token nest located on the Duke of Westminster’s Abbeystead estate, not one additional pair have been permitted to establish outside property owned by United Utilities

UNITED UTILITIES ESTATES

Site No.	No. Eggs Laid	No. Eggs Hatched	No. Chicks fledged	Fledging Rate %
1	6	1	1	17
2	3	0	0	0
3	4	3	3	75
4	4	0	0	0
5	5	1	1	20
*6	4	3	0	0
7	4	0	0	0
8	0	0	0	0
9	0	0	0	0

*Site 6, 3 chicks found dead in and around nest just one week after the temporary warden’s contract had been completed. Both adult birds missing. The hen harrier site *6 is located on the same leased shoot as the peregrine site *6 above with the poor productivity history. This could be pure co-incidence of course. At sites 8 & 9, copulation and sky dancing observed. Although no eggs were ever found, field workers firmly believe eggs were laid at each of the two sites.

Eagle Owl:

Percentage Fledging Successes

2006-2009

Forest of Bowland Estates,

Lancashire

United Utilities

Site No.	No. Eggs Laid	No. Eggs Hatched	No. Chicks fledged	Fledging Rate %
*2006	4	0	0	0
2007	3	3	3	100
*2007	4	0	0	0
*2008	4	2	2	50
*2009	3	0	0	0
*2009	2	1	1	50

*2006 Estate contractors installed stock fencing along banking opposite nesting ledge-nest containing 4 fresh eggs deserted.

*2007, second pair of eagle owls laid 4 eggs which were found destroyed in nest scrape.

*2008 police began to security mark eggs in nest.

*2009, After the police had entered nest containing a partial clutch of 3 eggs against expert advice, the pair of owls relocated to fresh scrape where they completed their clutch by laying an additional 2 eggs, of which only one egg hatched. The two eggs were not security marked and the police were not informed of the location of the replacement nest.