Shadow-watcher
Well-known member
http://www.scottishraptorgroups.org/news.php
First is a link to some information, Im attaching the PDF regarding the HH conservation framework set out by the JNCC to this post also.
If you read the PDF (which is worth it) you'll notice that the results used to assess the HH population came from at latest a 2004 survey, and that the JNCC identified persecution as the main reason for their decline. The greatest declinations were seen in areas of heather moorland managed for red grouse. Shooting estates/organisations attempted to debunk these findings based on the 'old' (2004) records, only for the 2010 results to paint a far worse picture.
[Interestingly there is another report recently published in 'Bird Study' regarding wader decline, which evidenced the higher abundance of certain waders in intensely managed grouse moorland. A conclusion shooting types were very smug about.]
The JNCC framework is, however, encouraging. It contains some very interesting information regarding ideal HH habitat and points out abundance of suitable habitat in North England and Wales. Page 41 gives you the conservation criteria for the HH which is again very interesting, but what is clear form the population density threshold is that HH will never be a highly abundant bird in any area (2.12 pairs per 100 km2). Though this makes complete ecological sense of course.
Most interestingly of all, this study showed that HH productivity within 10km of grouse management was increased, but survival of young was degraded. Presumably through the active persecution of nests rather than individual birds (bottom page 50). The authors thus reason that in the absence of persecution grouse management has a positive effect on Hen Harrier population (page 54). This of course also makes sense, and evidence of brood size increasing in areas with an abundance of food is fantastic news for a species as threatened as HH.
From the study, given distributions predictors and causes, it appears to me that the HH population really exists at the whim of the grouse shooting establishment. Would unmanaged grouse numbers be sufficient to provide the multiplyer to HH productivity the study found in relation to traditionally managed ones? How do we get HH to a stable population level when they are apparantly reliant on the system that persecutes them?
So often we hear HH were all but removed from this country by past persecution, but in reality that persecution is more rife then ever. Despite as much legislation as there is to protect these birds, we are seeing a most definite return to a UK void of HH. I find the lack of action in response to these kinds of results very concerning for the future of HH in the UK.
First is a link to some information, Im attaching the PDF regarding the HH conservation framework set out by the JNCC to this post also.
If you read the PDF (which is worth it) you'll notice that the results used to assess the HH population came from at latest a 2004 survey, and that the JNCC identified persecution as the main reason for their decline. The greatest declinations were seen in areas of heather moorland managed for red grouse. Shooting estates/organisations attempted to debunk these findings based on the 'old' (2004) records, only for the 2010 results to paint a far worse picture.
[Interestingly there is another report recently published in 'Bird Study' regarding wader decline, which evidenced the higher abundance of certain waders in intensely managed grouse moorland. A conclusion shooting types were very smug about.]
The JNCC framework is, however, encouraging. It contains some very interesting information regarding ideal HH habitat and points out abundance of suitable habitat in North England and Wales. Page 41 gives you the conservation criteria for the HH which is again very interesting, but what is clear form the population density threshold is that HH will never be a highly abundant bird in any area (2.12 pairs per 100 km2). Though this makes complete ecological sense of course.
Most interestingly of all, this study showed that HH productivity within 10km of grouse management was increased, but survival of young was degraded. Presumably through the active persecution of nests rather than individual birds (bottom page 50). The authors thus reason that in the absence of persecution grouse management has a positive effect on Hen Harrier population (page 54). This of course also makes sense, and evidence of brood size increasing in areas with an abundance of food is fantastic news for a species as threatened as HH.
From the study, given distributions predictors and causes, it appears to me that the HH population really exists at the whim of the grouse shooting establishment. Would unmanaged grouse numbers be sufficient to provide the multiplyer to HH productivity the study found in relation to traditionally managed ones? How do we get HH to a stable population level when they are apparantly reliant on the system that persecutes them?
So often we hear HH were all but removed from this country by past persecution, but in reality that persecution is more rife then ever. Despite as much legislation as there is to protect these birds, we are seeing a most definite return to a UK void of HH. I find the lack of action in response to these kinds of results very concerning for the future of HH in the UK.
Last edited:
