Merlin survey: more than meets the eye?

Merlin survey under scrutiny

Moorland estate owners across England have been advised by the Moorland Association (MA) not to participate in a national merlin survey after it was revealed that RSPB fieldworkers would be recording “known or suspected persecution incidents” and whether the ground is managed for grouse shooting.

The survey, conducted by the RSPB in partnership with Natural England and other UK statutory conservation bodies, is the first since 2008 and aims to provide a picture of how the red-listed merlin is faring. The RSPB said replicating the methodology of the previous national count was essential to measuring change. 

Natural England has been seeking access to private moorland estates for RSPB research assistants to carry out the survey. However, instructions issued to those research assistants, seen by Shooting Times, reveal the survey extends beyond simply counting birds. 

Surveyors are required to classify moorland as managed for grouse shooting or not. They must also record the extent of heather burning. And in the “additional comments” section of the recording form, surveyors are directed to note any “known or suspected persecution incidents”, without any definition of the term or explanation of what will be done with the information collected.

.

Concerns over scope and transparency

Andrew Gilruth, chief executive of the MA, was unsparing in his criticism. “Suspected by whom, on what basis and to what standard?” he asked. “Recorded for what purpose, shared with whom, retained where and used how? Those are not trivial questions. They go to the heart of what this exercise really is.”

The RSPB has campaigned for the licensing of driven grouse shooting on the grounds of alleged raptor persecution by keepers, a charge the industry strenuously disputes. For moorland estates already wary of that scrutiny, the prospect of RSPB staff walking over their ground and noting “known or suspected persecution incidents” is not a neutral proposition.

.

Estates urged to refuse access

On 7 April the Moorland Association published a template letter for members to send to Natural England, refusing RSPB contractors access until eight detailed questions were answered, covering everything from the scope of the survey to the use of RSPB staff. 

Natural England replied on 20 April, offering assurances that access was sought by consent only, with no statutory powers of entry invoked; that RSPB contractors would agree dates and routes with landowners beforehand; that no contact details or results would be passed on without consent; and that landowners would receive copies of all survey records promptly after each visit. 

Contrary to what Mr Gilruth said estates had previously been told, Natural England disclosed that in England surveyors would also assess the condition of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) where breeding merlin are notified features. Nonetheless, Natural England said unequivocally that there would be “no other habitat inspection, wider monitoring, or data gathering for any other regulatory purpose”. 

.

Trust remains a sticking point

Mr Gilruth remained unconvinced, questioning why estates had not first been asked to share their own merlin records and why gamekeepers and estate staff – who often have the most detailed knowledge of the ground and nest locations – had not been consulted before outside contractors requested entry.

“Where Raptor Study Group workers or other individuals outside Natural England are being drawn into sensitive observations of this kind, members are entitled to ask whether opinion, prejudice or speculation is being given an official-looking route into the system,” said Mr Gilruth. 

“If Natural England wants confidence, it needs to say plainly who is involved, in what capacity, under what authority, with what safeguards and to what evidential standard. Vague references to collaboration are not enough.”

Natural England told Shooting Times that the survey “focuses solely on the endangered merlin to give us vital information about population numbers” and that surveyors were asked to note anything that could harm the birds they were monitoring, “such as habitat changes or signs of illegal persecution”. It added that “no surveys have taken place without landowner consent and data that is collected will not be shared beyond Natural England, the RSPB and the relevant landowner”.

At the time of writing, the MA was writing formally to Natural England and the RSPB and had told members to refuse access to merlin surveyors until both bodies had responded.