In the latest edition of the RSPB’s Legal Eagle newsletter (here), there’s an article about how satellite tag technology is shining a bright light on illegal raptor persecution.
We were particularly interested to read the following paragraph:
‘In October 2016, Cumbria Constabulary announced that, following some excellent fieldwork by Natural England, one of the Natural England / Hawk & Owl Trust sponsored birds, Rowan, had been found dead on the edge of the county. The Zoological Society of London post mortem examination, including a radiograph of its fractured left leg, showed the bird’s injuries were entirely consistent with it having been shot‘.
Well, well, well. ‘Injuries entirely consistent with being shot‘ is a very different message from that put out by Natural England, Cumbria Constabulary and the Hawk & Owl Trust, who claimed Rowan was only ‘likely to have been shot’ (see here and here).
Indeed, when challenged about the lack of transparency, the Hawk & Owl Trust conjured up this statement:
“The initial post mortem results were not wholly conclusive and further metallurgical tests were required” (see here).
Last month we asked the Hawk & Owl Trust three questions about their statement:
- Who said the initial post mortem results weren’t wholly conclusive?
- Who said further metallurgical tests were required?
- Have those further metallurgical tests been done? If so, where are the results? If they haven’t been done, four months on, then why not if they were supposedly “required”?
The Hawk & Owl Trust has not responded. Perhaps they’re too busy looking for a big enough shovel to dig themselves out of the crater.
That’s the thing about cover-ups. They are usually uncovered, especially badly botched ones.