I have reviewed the emoticon selection and will consider it more thoroughly next time.

I noticed today the RSPB have put out a press release statement outlining the extent of illegal bird deaths as reported to the police or media. It felt a little difficult reading it, because as I think you're suggesting, it looks a bit immaterial when the opposing party is doing what it wants anyway.

Not withstanding this though, it brought me back to the basic idea of the diversionary feeding, which hopefully can persuade gamekeepers that it isn't necessary to slaughter everything on the estate. They don't feel threatened by the law, and as you say they don't think anyone else has as valid an opinion, but maybe an approach that means less work for them might be preferable. Also, in theory being shamed into stopping is a logical outcome so the public opinion bit is important, if a slow-burner...

Simon Gough wrote:

---

Hi Andy,

I was being a bit mischievous, sorry, although I don't suppose many people would read your comment as an approving description of what the RSPB are doing. I also think you're right to say that they will be getting round the table with some people that we as birders and wildlife lovers would probably want to just deliver to the nearest police station...but I think the RSPB is doing something pragmatic and essentially pretty sensible and I'm sure they've weighed up carefully where to direct their effort. I want them to spend our money on effective measures more than anything else.

There is a slight concern that they will be seen as legitimizing the shooting fraternity, but in a way it's possibly quite clever because if they do draw the shooting estates into some public commitments then if those commitments are honoured the harriers will get some protection, and if they aren't we have a bigger stick to beat them with.

To me the bottom line is that nothing has ever stopped the persecution of raptors and other wildlife on those moors, so until you've tried every way to stop it you have to keep trying new things.

Hopefully also the weight of public opinion is building to a point where it is politically preferable to go after the shooting estates rather than suffer the condemnation from the public. The two dead satellite tags on the harrier chicks from this summer were mentioned on Autumnwatch tonight, the issue is in front of millions of people now.

---

Hi Simon,

I don't know if there is an emoticon for 'mischievous', but there should be. I might then have read your reply in the light it was meant.

In a previous message, I mentioned gamekeepers being at war with conservationists, and I think they now see all this publicity as an all-out attack on their freedom to do whatever they like on 'their' land. They are therefore not bothered by the ensuing escalation of the battle, as shown by their recent en masse slaughterings, because it's out there in the public domain in full view anyway now, but we cannot do very much (if anything) to stop it. It's like any bully would act; they keep hitting you harder, but what are you doing to do about it?

Hi Andy,

I was being a bit mischievous, sorry, although I don't suppose many people would read your comment as an approving description of what the RSPB are doing. I also think you're right to say that they will be getting round the table with some people that we as birders and wildlife lovers would probably want to just deliver to the nearest police station...but I think the RSPB is doing something pragmatic and essentially pretty sensible and I'm sure they've weighed up carefully where to direct their effort. I want them to spend our money on effective measures more than anything else.

There is a slight concern that they will be seen as legitimizing the shooting fraternity, but in a way it's possibly quite clever because if they do draw the shooting estates into some public commitments then if those commitments are honoured the harriers will get some protection, and if they aren't we have a bigger stick to beat them with.

To me the bottom line is that nothing has ever stopped the persecution of raptors and other wildlife on those moors, so until you've tried every way to stop it you have to keep trying new things.

Hopefully also the weight of public opinion is building to a point where it is politically preferable to go after the shooting estates rather than suffer the condemnation from the public. The two dead satellite tags on the harrier chicks from this summer were mentioned on Autumnwatch tonight, the issue is in front of millions of people now.

Simon Gough wrote:

---

Andy Bissitt wrote:

---

I have still not bought the Times, and never will again. The guru to whom I now turn is Richard Mabey in the BBC Wildlife magazine. He has some 'Barnesque' words to share about the RSPB getting into bed with the shooters (amongst other things) in October's issue. Let no one be in any doubt, a sizeable number of gamekeepers are at war with people like us, and they're loving it because they're winning. They can't fail to as our 'progress at any cost' government has left conservationists toothless.

---

What are the RSPB doing wrong? It might have escaped me.

---

'Doing wrong' were not the words I used Simon, and having now read the background to Richard Mabey's misgivings in the latest edition of Nature's Home, I think he was being a little unkind. The RSPB do appear to be attaching a lot of provisos to any arrangements that they might make with the law-breaking shooters, but it is a lot like dancing with the Devil. Can you really trust those who have so little regard for the 'wild' side of nature, whose eyes are dead to the beauty of the natural world, to whom money comes first? Not so, I'd say. Not until the full weight of the Law is brought to bear on the landowners and their 'village idiot' type employees.

Andy Bissitt wrote:

---

I have still not bought the Times, and never will again. The guru to whom I now turn is Richard Mabey in the BBC Wildlife magazine. He has some 'Barnesque' words to share about the RSPB getting into bed with the shooters (amongst other things) in October's issue. Let no one be in any doubt, a sizeable number of gamekeepers are at war with people like us, and they're loving it because they're winning. They can't fail to as our 'progress at any cost' government has left conservationists toothless.

---

What are the RSPB doing wrong? It might have escaped me.

For devotees of Simon Barnes (and I am one), there is a very strongly worded article about bird crime, by him, in
this Winter's Edition of ''Nature's Home''. Despite his recommendation for ASBO's for people involved in bird crime
and the landowner who permits it, there is nothing but praise, in the magazine, for Simon Barnes and he appears
to be supported by the RSPB and not in danger of the sack from them.

I have still not bought the Times, and never will again. The guru to whom I now turn is Richard Mabey in the BBC Wildlife magazine. He has some 'Barnesque' words to share about the RSPB getting into bed with the shooters (amongst other things) in October's issue. Let no one be in any doubt, a sizeable number of gamekeepers are at war with people like us, and they're loving it because they're winning. They can't fail to as our 'progress at any cost' government has left conservationists toothless.

Simon Barnes has eight pages in the October issue of British Wildlife, looking at the challenges ahead in conservation. He begins a new column in the February 2015 issue
www.britishwildlife.com

colin moran wrote:

---

full page in the times today by matt ridley titled gamekeepers are natures best friends come back simon barnes

---

I'm not surprised at all by Matt Ridley, it's genetic. His late uncle was, without doubt, the worst Secretary of State for the Environment by a country mile. I'm sorry to hear about Simon Barnes though. I couldn't read The Times, but have read some of his books and he's always struck me as a decent bloke.

Chris J-B.

David Kaye wrote:

---

Sunday Times marks Hen Harrier Day with article by Charles Clover entitled "Sorry to Grouse, but the hen harrier's biggest enemy is the RSPB"

---

Haven't read the article (i refused to read the times even before this series of events) but unless I'm missing something - ie a very large tongue bulging in a cheek - it strikes me as being about as sensible a statement as saying that the motorcar's biggest enemy is the AA, or something along those lines. I'm not usually a subscriber to conspiracy theories, but in this instance I know which way my beliefs are heading.

Sunday Times marks Hen Harrier Day with article by Charles Clover entitled "Sorry to Grouse, but the hen harrier's biggest enemy is the RSPB"

Hmmm. Conservative member of the House of Lords, one of his books is entitled combatting environmental myths! Is that the same bloke?

-- Edited by Craig Higson on Monday 11th of August 2014 11:57:36 PM

you were right all along Andy, my money was on them bringing Robin Page in, Prince Charles has apparently commissioned Page to write some articles

colin moran wrote:

---

full page in the times today by matt ridley titled gamekeepers are natures best friends come back simon barnes

---

Despise is a harsh word, but suitable for my feelings towards Matt Ridley (and not just for this; he's always been an apologist for anything anti-conservation). What a great tit. Can anyone doubt the motives of The Times now? They obviously have a lot of sucking-up to do in order to get back into the good books of the hunting cronies.

full page in the times today by matt ridley titled gamekeepers are natures best friends come back simon barnes

John Rayner wrote:

---

Andy Bissitt wrote:

---

Life holds too few things to look forward to...

---

Andy,  

Let me try to cheer you up. To borrow a line from a friend of mine, you have already won the lottery by being born in a western democracy rather than, perhaps, a mosquito infested mud hut next to malarial swamp.

In my view our planet, and most species upon it, will survive very nicely thank you once it eventually rids itself of mankind by some apocalypse or other (don't worry, hopefully a few thousands to a few million years left for us yet ). And Earth will be around for some five billion years, so plenty of time to recover. So, think longer term but, meanwhile, you only get one shot at enjoying your own three score years and ten! I doubt this will make your glass any more than half empty but at least I tried .

Cheers John

---

Thanks John, but I'm not as gloomy as my posts sometimes make me sound. However I am a pessimist, because that way you can never be disappointed. On your other point, I was born in Salford so it was a close call. On my original thread. Did anyone get The Times today. I had a quick peek in the supermarket to make sure Barnes hadn't one more week to see out, but they had someone else (Jim Dixon? I guess he comes cheap) doing his piece. I obviously couldn't read it at lenght, but the main feature was, inevitably, about hen harriers, and I think I saw that his closing lines more than hinted that they will be alright in the longer term due to the progression towards a more enlightened attitude by landowners and gamekeepers. More fuel towards the conspiracy fire if I read that correctly. What a farce.

Taking the long term view there then John! Made me chuckle that.

Andy Bissitt wrote:

---

Life holds too few things to look forward to...

---

Andy,  

Let me try to cheer you up. To borrow a line from a friend of mine, you have already won the lottery by being born in a western democracy rather than, perhaps, a mosquito infested mud hut next to malarial swamp.

In my view our planet, and most species upon it, will survive very nicely thank you once it eventually rids itself of mankind by some apocalypse or other (don't worry, hopefully a few thousands to a few million years left for us yet ). And Earth will be around for some five billion years, so plenty of time to recover. So, think longer term but, meanwhile, you only get one shot at enjoying your own three score years and ten! I doubt this will make your glass any more than half empty but at least I tried .

Cheers John

I did write to The Times 'comments' section online, so it might be in tomorrows edition. I did, tongue in cheek, suggest Chris Packham as a replacement!!. It would be interesting to know whether the paper made any other senior staff redundant at the same time, or any other staff at all for that matter. My cousin, who I will see shortly at a funeral, works for News International in London, so I'll ask her. I guess most of what I wrote was in pure frustration at Barnes' departure. Life holds too few things to look forward to, and his weekly outpourings were one of them, mostly because it could have been me writing those words. I guess I'll have to rely on my fellow Forum 'posters' to provide me with a feeling that somewhere there are people showing solidarity against the material world.

Amazing how powerful the internet can be. One person suggests on his blog the reason why someone has lost his job, a few days later people are cancelling their newspaper subscription. I can't find any other source for these rumours, other than that emanating from the pen of Mr. Avery. Perhaps it's Bill and I who are the cynics . . .

It suits Mr. Avery's agenda at the moment to create a conspiracy theory to keep the Hen harrier debate in the headlines . . . well, the birding forums. It seems to be working.

Reading some of the comments from his blog on August 2nd Mr. Avery seems to be backing down somewhat - ' it wasn't an allegation, it was an 'I wonder if...' Perhaps one of Mr. Murdoch's cronies has 'had a word'.

Whilst I'm full of admiration for Bill's lack of cynicism, I've got to admit that my own life experiences have led me to think the worst in cases like this. However, I think Andy's portrayal of the stereotypical grouse moor owner is a little out of date. More and more grouse moors are being bought by hard-nosed businessmen who can entertain clients whilst posing as the landed gentry.

Simon Barnes is hardly likely to provide any evidence to back up these suspicions. He has been made redundant, rather than sacked, which means he will have received a pay off - to which strings are normally attached.

If you are going to stop buying The Times, tell them why. For many years I've tried to avoid any Murdoch-owned enterprises, but as he owns over 800 companies in 50 countries it gets a bit difficult!

Bill Myerscough wrote:

---

Think I must be losing a bit of grey matter because if the supposition is being made that Simon Barnes has lost his job for the suggestions given, then I'm sorry but I just can't see it. These suppositions are presumably based on the blog quoted in Charles's earlier post? If so, then in my opinion the stepping stones that supposedly link his job loss with his passionate articles on the persecution of Hen Harriers look to be a long way apart and decidedly wobbly, to put it kindly. There is no suggestion even in Simon's own comments in the blog that this is the case. Surely if that had been the case, as an articulate and combative writer he would have been the first to spill the beans? I suppose the reason given (the cost of his salary) doesn't make a good story for a blogger to chat about though does it? The very nature of blogs is that they have to be interesting to attract attention. Provocative and controversial articles will gather more followers and then be re-posted, re-blogged, re-tweeted more often than more stodgy fare. There is nothing wrong with being provocative and controversial (Simon Barnes and many other journalists have made good careers out of it and we are generally all the better for them doing so). However, let's not forget that good honest journalism should be based on solid facts and evidence (which this particular story doesn't appear to be at present). Hen Harrier protection is a very serious and pressing subject but if we end up creating this sort of superficial conspiracy theory froth then we end up no better than those who would harm the birds and all the dishonest lines that some of them spout.

As for not buying The Times because of one questionable "incident"? Sorry, but I don't go along with that either. You contribute to an organisation because you believe that on balance the majority of things they do are correct. Not everything they do you can agree with but to change for one or two things? It's like saying " I've left the BTO because I don't like the design of their new logo" or "I've cancelled my membership of the RSPB because my Aunt Mabel is convinced that they're using less sultanas in their toasted teacakes than before in the café!" It should be about balance and perspective.

Cheers,

Bill.


-- Edited by Bill Myerscough on Monday 4th of August 2014 05:26:27 PM

---

Bill,

You are obviously nothing like the cynic that I am. I am willing to believe that human beings will go to whatever lenghts are necessary to get things their way. When you have seen the sort of statements eminating from Downing St. which make it very clear that undiluted progress and money-making are the only way forward and that nothing should stand in its way, who wouldn't load the gun pointing at the head of somebody who takes a stance which could cost you a great deal of money? I bet that if 'Yes, Minister' was still doing the rounds, they would have little problem in acting out just how such a result might be brought about. I can just hear some treble-chinned, seventy-fifth in line to the throne Etonian whining 'Who does this pony-tailed, unshaven, loud-mouthed twerp think that he is?, in between shouting 'Tally Ho' and 'There's never a servant around when you need one'.

I shall not be buying The Times again on Saturday (or any other day). Not just because of the circumstances of his leaving, but because it was often the only thing worth buying it for. It's probably the same reason that they gave for cutting down on the cricket coverage - cost. However football has not suffered the same fate. Perhaps it is just pandering to the lowest common denominator after all? Just perhaps?

Great journalist. Shame.

-- Edited by Craig Higson on Monday 4th of August 2014 09:17:27 PM

Think I must be losing a bit of grey matter because if the supposition is being made that Simon Barnes has lost his job for the suggestions given, then I'm sorry but I just can't see it. These suppositions are presumably based on the blog quoted in Charles's earlier post? If so, then in my opinion the stepping stones that supposedly link his job loss with his passionate articles on the persecution of Hen Harriers look to be a long way apart and decidedly wobbly, to put it kindly. There is no suggestion even in Simon's own comments in the blog that this is the case. Surely if that had been the case, as an articulate and combative writer he would have been the first to spill the beans? I suppose the reason given (the cost of his salary) doesn't make a good story for a blogger to chat about though does it? The very nature of blogs is that they have to be interesting to attract attention. Provocative and controversial articles will gather more followers and then be re-posted, re-blogged, re-tweeted more often than more stodgy fare. There is nothing wrong with being provocative and controversial (Simon Barnes and many other journalists have made good careers out of it and we are generally all the better for them doing so). However, let's not forget that good honest journalism should be based on solid facts and evidence (which this particular story doesn't appear to be at present). Hen Harrier protection is a very serious and pressing subject but if we end up creating this sort of superficial conspiracy theory froth then we end up no better than those who would harm the birds and all the dishonest lines that some of them spout.

As for not buying The Times because of one questionable "incident"? Sorry, but I don't go along with that either. You contribute to an organisation because you believe that on balance the majority of things they do are correct. Not everything they do you can agree with but to change for one or two things? It's like saying " I've left the BTO because I don't like the design of their new logo" or "I've cancelled my membership of the RSPB because my Aunt Mabel is convinced that they're using less sultanas in their toasted teacakes than before in the café!" It should be about balance and perspective.

Cheers,

Bill.


-- Edited by Bill Myerscough on Monday 4th of August 2014 05:26:27 PM

Mark Avery wrote about this in his blog when he learnt of this some weeks ago and the link was retweeted a lot

http://markavery.info/2014/06/25/curious-case-simon-barness-departure-times/

If this is indeed the case, it is absolutely disgusting.

I heard about this over the weekend as well, Andy. It doesn't pay to get on the wrong side of Rupert Murdoch and his cronies. Of course there's only circumstantial evidence about Simon Barnes' "redundancy" but, like with all the hacking scandals, evidence disappears without trace and people suddenly have serious memory lapses...

I don't know if this is news to many people, but I've just been reading online that The Times' sports feature writer and conservation correspondent Simon Barnes has lost his job. Maybe nothing out of place there you might think, but if you Google 'Simon Barnes The Times', you will find a few threads which make a connection between his extremely tough stance on the destruction of Hen Harriers on grouse moors and his dismissal. This is a sad blow for the wildlife of the U.K. if, as it seems, the upper classes have decided enough was enough and got into the ribs of The Times hierarchy to do something about him. I would urge any readers of the paper out there to reconsider their purchasing of it in future, and to support even more vigourously the campaign to bring these self imposed cleansers of our countryside to task.