Yorkshire Dales ‘could have too many hen harriers before long’

Clive Aslet is a former Editor of Country Life magazine who boasts of being ‘an acknowledged leading authority on Britain and its way of life‘, whatever that means.

One thing’s for sure, Mr Aslet is no leading authority on the principles of ecology.

He wrote a bizarre comment piece for The Times, published last week in response to DEFRA’s new (not new) raptor persecution maps, as follows:

BIRDS OF PREY NEED PROTECTION FROM HUMAN PREDATORS

The protection of raptors, such as hawks, eagles, buzzards and falcons, is one of the great success stories of the British countryside. When JA Baker wrote his classic The Peregrine fifty years ago, many species were in long-term decline, thanks largely to insecticides used in intensive agriculture and the severe winters of the early 1960s. Numbers have risen sharply since DTT and its like were banned, and raptors were given legal protection. Peregrines now even nest on London skyscrapers.

There have been successful reintroductions, such as that of the red kite: it’s common to see a dozen of these enormous birds now circling over the M40 in Oxfordshire. But successes like these worry country people who know that having too many large carnivores at the top of the food chain means that other species will suffer. Red kites are scavengers (hence their preference for roads, which provide a ready supply of carcasses) but when carrion becomes scarce they turn to living prey.

Grouse moors are a special problem. For the moor owner, grouse are a valuable crop. The bird provides a livelihood to the keepers who control predators such as foxes, stoats and rats that prey on eggs and chicks. Vermin control also allows wading birds like plovers, lapwings and curlews to nest in safety: it’s a wonderful thing to visit a moor teeming with wading birds as well as grouse, whether or not you plan to shoot any of them. But as a report published today shows, many keepers trap or kill hen harriers and sparrow hawks that threaten the viability of the shoot. They deserve to be prosecuted.

At last, landowners are getting the message that this behaviour is unacceptable, and are making greater efforts to conserve raptors. The prospect of the law in Scotland, which targets landowners as well as keepers, being introduced in England has concentrated minds. As has the possibility of a Labour government banning shooting altogether and making grouse moors worthless.

But there remains, as in many areas of conservation, a geographical imbalance. Some areas have too many raptors, others none at all. Exmoor, for example, has no hen harriers; before long, given the male bird’s promiscuity, the Yorkshire Dales could have too many.

Relocating broods from overpopulated areas to underpopulated ones is the answer — opposed, sadly, by the RSPB. Brexit offers a way out of this problem. Freed from the need for a one-size-fits-all approach, we can create the flexible conservation policy our birds of prey deserve.

ENDS

Leaving aside his obvious failure to grasp the simple conventions of predator/prey relationships (we can’t be bothered to turn this in to a lesson on the basics of ecology), we wanted to focus on just the last three paragraphs of his article.

Aslet seems to be muddled about brood meddling. He argues that “Relocating broods from overpopulated areas to underpopulated ones is the answer“. But that’s not what DEFRA’s hen harrier brood meddling is about. It might well be what the grouse shooting industry thought it was about, and wanted it to be about, when they first signed up for it – ‘Yeah, great, let’s get rid of hen harriers from our grouse moors and ship them off down to southern England so they can’t interfere with our shooting days in the northern uplands’, but as we now know, any hen harrier chicks removed from grouse moors and raised in captivity as part of DEFRA’s absurd brood meddling plan, will HAVE to be released back in to the uplands close to where they were first removed, and their release will coincide with the start of the grouse-shooting season. They cannot be used as the source birds for DEFRA’s equally absurd southern England reintroduction plan.

As for Aslet’s claim that “before long, given the male bird’s promiscuity, the Yorkshire Dales could have too many” [hen harriers], chance would be a fine thing! According to this report, there were only three successful hen harrier breeding attempts in the Yorkshire Dales National Park between 2000-2007, and since then, there haven’t been any!

Aslet also claims, “At last, landowners are getting the message that this behaviour is unacceptable, and are making greater efforts to conserve raptors“. Really? Some landowners are, for sure, but how many of those landowners manage driven grouse moors? It’s all very well saying that raptor persecution is unacceptable and pretending to be on board, but the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. There were only three successful hen harrier breeding attempts in the whole of England this year, and for the second year in a row, not one of those was on a driven grouse moor.

28 thoughts on “Yorkshire Dales ‘could have too many hen harriers before long’”

  1. Amongst all the drivel, which you clearly highlight, one part stands out for special mention; “banning shooting altogether and making grouse moors worthless.” That demonstrates, in eight words, exactly what the attitude is to our uplands and our natural resources in general. Worthless if you can’t get someone to pay to shoot some of the wildlife. These people have got to go.

  2. “Hen Harriers, before long, given the male bird’s promiscuity, the Yorkshire Dales could have too many”

    Well at last something to look forward to in this neck of the woods!

    A couple of questions for Clive just for a bit of clarity. 1. How long is before long? 2. How many Hen Harriers in the YDNP is too many?

    It seems that even with all of the resources, public funding, goodwill and action plans, the various responsible agencies cannot even conjure up a token pair. How does Clive explain this disparity?

  3. ‘many species were in long-term decline, thanks largely to insecticides used in intensive agriculture and the severe winters of the early 1960s.’
    Right, nothing to do with gamekeepers then, that is a relief.

    And i had to laugh at the word promiscuity. Those immoral Hen Harriers at it again. [Image of Michael Caine’s nosey neighbour in the Fast Show with binoculars checking on the randy Hen Harriers.]

  4. Yes the man is obviously either very blinkered one might even say stupid or a dyed in the wool shooting man with grasp of ecology. It was really only the bird killers that were really badly affected by DDT, birds that fed on birds that had themselves fed on toxic treated crops, namely Peregrine and Sparrowhawk, yes other soecies also suffered but not to the same extent. Most of our raptors were even before the advent of toxic organochlorides pretty bloody rare due in the main to the keeper with his gun, traps and poison, but lets ignore that because the keeper is/was a true countryman! Bollocks tell it as it is he is and was a wildlife criminal!
    I too want ask this numbwit how many harriers is too many? and too many for what? Yet another example of lazy journalism or written by the ecologically illiterate.
    Given that the Yorkshire Dales NP contains over 80,000 hectares of upland heath with SSSI status that equates to about 40 pairs of harriers without damage to grouse stocks (if evenly spread) plus the 20-25 pairs the Nidderdale AONB could support on the same basis. At maximum harrier density this could be 120 pairs. The ecology would support this. But they are terribly promiscuous these harriers who knows what might happen!
    The report you allude to does not of course reference the two successful broods of harriers in the Nidderdale AONB in the same time period, the main breeding area straddles the park/AONB boundary

  5. What puzzles me is what motivates him to write this ill-informed drivel. Trouble is that some people out there might believe it. Maybe it’s as well it was in The Times rather than the Daily Mail – though that might be next week.

  6. As far as I know the Labour Party isn’t considering banning grouse shooting, and nor is it what is being sought for raptor protection – it’s banning DRIVEN grouse shooting that’s the target.

    1. It must be that the editor/sub editor that deals with it is also ecologically illiterate whether that is wilful or due to ignorance who knows.

  7. “……..before long, given the male bird’s promiscuity, the Yorkshire Dales could have too many.”

    I can see what he means and it would be a serious concern shared by the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority. Visitors would soon get bored with seeing too many harriers, visitor numbers would drop as people were attracted to other areas like the Peak District National Park where they could walk all day and see no harriers. What a worry!

    1. Yes indeed, I think i’m going to run off a rate law from the top of my head, given the promiscuity of the males, the rate = k x (no of reproductive age FEMALES), where k is a constant determined experimentally.

    1. And, as another country person, I don’t call something only about twice the size of a carrion crow enormous either.

  8. I second all the above comments and add that it concerns me a bit that the fact that some raptors are becoming increasingly common in urban landscapes is used to paint a picture that if they are ‘even on London’s skyscrapers’ just think how thick on the ground they must be in the country. Which is likely to be the opposite of the real situation.

  9. Clive Aslet should stick writing about architecture…..
    He has some sort of degree in that field apparently.

  10. Apologies in advance to many of the commenters here, but I take a very different view of this piece (and others like it).
    I don’t think the grouse botherers are all ignorant – my fear is that some of them are really very clever. I read this a skilfully crafted piece of propaganda, that will come across to the vast majority of its readers as reasonable, moderate and compelling. I doubt that Aslet is muddled in his understanding of the points he makes – rather, he is entirely cynical in distorting the truth and the facts, of which he is probably well aware, to produce a plausible case that will resonate with many people less familiar with the issues and the ecology than most readers here.
    His choice of words is calculated to play on people’s fears and preconceptions about predators, and to introduce them gently to the concepts of raptor control and translocation in a way that sounds like ‘common sense’ and, of course, has conservation at its heart. My guess is that it will be pretty effective in its aims.
    Please stop underestimating these guys – they’re morally bankrupt but very shrewd operators. We’ve been lulled into a false sense of security by some feeble and clumsy efforts like YFTB, but I fear they’re upping their game now. If in doubt, keep tracking the progress of the 3 current petitions on grouse shooting.

  11. AGREE FULLY….there are very rich vested interests here and they will try and prevent all attempts to resist Grouse `moors management ,in addition there is a strong sheep farming lobby already getting a huge subsidy from every person in Britain.There are plenty of articulate writers who will churn out anything for a price.

  12. Why would he think “Brexit offers a way out of this problem” – This may prove to be the major issue in the future, where the UK government, will be under relentless pressure from lobbyists representing an assortment of commercial interests, e.g., shooting, pharmaceutical, and housing. These pillars of commerce will already be in the starting blocks. Even Local Authorities, well intentioned as they might be, will be under increasing pressure to cut costs, and will inevitably start to look for savings – for savings read short-cuts.

  13. Clive Aslet gets off to a bad start by confusing DDT with DTT, which is of course… either Digital Terrestrial Television, or Dithiothreitol (otherwise known as Clelands reagent). This sets the course for the rest of the piece, which is utter drivel. And this the editor of “Country Life” magazine??!! Such xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx give real “true countrymen” (why always men?) a bad name. Honest learned people who understand nature and ecology, those living today, and past true experts like Derek Ratcliffe and Desmond Nethersole-Thompson who must be turning in their graves.

    This is the problem with the shooting community; they deride genuine scientists and naturalists as “fake experts,” yet they are the worst con artists of all. This factor alone seriously hinders any meaningful dialogue. The dark side even uses parliamentary debates to confuse public understanding, by claiming outrageous “facts” that Hen Harriers are “thriving on grouse moors.” They say that the reason conservationists allege only three pairs of harriers nested on English grouse moors is because they are incompetent surveyors. Or even that we are killing the birds by weighing them down with satellite tags, and the more radical amongst us are actually shooting the birds ourselves and blaming it on gamekeepers! The general public need to be made more aware of the fundamental dishonesty of one particular side in this debate. Just as importantly, the agencies responsible for conserving our natural heritage, and their political masters, need to re-assess the direction in which they are heading.

    1. Well written and totally correct as usual Iain, but that is the problem HOW do we get the massage across to a general public most of them very intelligent people but who are programmed to believe the jolly rosy faced farmer and the gamekeeper catching the poacher myths. They love nature but they are busy people , without the time or energy ,understandably to delve into the politics of the countryside. The status quo seems fine to them .The dark side work from that base and reinforce it their fake news . That same public would without doubt be horrified and would demand change if we could get the truth across but we are against a powerful ,rich and clever establishment,and we are starting from scratch. Without our trump card RSPB “going public” I am at a loss as to what to do other than keep plugging away.

Leave a comment