Alliance issue complaint over 'disgraceful journalism' following Times Gamekeeper story

Following a misleading article in The Times titled 'Gamekeepers 'under pressure' to kill illegally' (The Times, 6 May), the Countryside Alliance have made a formal complaint.

The complaint, which has been sent to The Times, was written by Adrian Blackmore, the Alliance's Director of Shooting.

Since being published, the article in question has received numerous objections online over its reporting of a piece of research conducted by the University of Exeter titled 'Understanding diverse approaches to predator management among gamekeepers in England'.

In response to The Times story and the misleading headline used, Professor Robbie McDonald, one of the authors of the paper publicly stated "This is not what our research found."

Mr. Blackmore makes clear the Times journalist: "distorts the truth" and that his article "bears no resemblance to the paper".

The Countryside Alliance has issued the complaint directly to The Times and shall update members as and when a full response is received.

The full complaint can be found below:

06/05/2020

To whom it may concern,

Your article 'Gamekeepers 'under pressure' to kill illegally' (The Times, 6 May), is a disgraceful piece of journalism which distorts the truth, and bears no resemblance to the paper 'Understanding diverse approaches to predator management among gamekeepers in England', published in People and Nature by the British Ecological Society, on which it is based. Professor Robbie McDonald, one of the authors of that paper has stated "This is not what our research found. Our focus was on legal predator management. We found that keepers were not particularly motivated by employer pressures but had diverse motivations, including a sense of custodianship for game and non-game wildlife".

The paper was based on interviews regarding predator control with 20 gamekeepers employed in five counties across the South of England: 'The respondents articulated pride in their profession and continuing a 'way of life' or a 'vocation' that was both very traditional and under threat from outside powers (those who disagreed with aspects of game management, referred to as 'antis')'. Indeed, one respondent expressed frustration about how he felt illegality in the profession was framed by the media and conservation organizations: 'We're not bird of prey killers. We're game protectors'. There could be no better example of that threat, and the intentionally misleading portrayal of the whole gamekeeping industry, than the article in today's Times.

The paper explained that in selecting participants, individuals were sought with a diversity of experience and backgrounds, in order to sample from the spatially and organizationally diverse gamekeeping profession in southern England, and it was acknowledged that this may not be a quantitatively representative cross‐section of the wider profession. Although the research was therefore southern orientated and lowland shoot focused, your article used quotes from two individuals far removed from the research area in question. One of these was RSPB Scotland's head of species and land management, not that of the RSPB as incorrectly implied, and a member of Moorland Monitors, a network that works to protect wildlife and habitats on the grouse shooting moors of the Peak District. The reasons for this can only be surmised.

Your claim that gamekeepers fear colleagues may "take the mickey" if they do not persecute animals such as foxes, magpies and buzzards, which prey on game birds, is a blatant distortion of the facts. The paper explains how one gamekeeper 'controlled magpies, in part, because other gamekeepers 'take the Mickey' when they saw this species on his beat'. That is not persecution, neither was he referring to the other two species.

The livelihoods of some keepers could well depend on their being enough game birds to shoot each season, which would make predators a threat to job security, and it is for that reason legal predator control is one of the tasks of a game keeper. However, the addition of the following sentence "you are forced to break the law, or some people are, if you're under a lot of pressure", is another intentional distortion of the findings of the research.

In your article, it is also claimed that other gamekeepers 'described the ease of using poison, traps and firearms to kill protected species. One said "A lot of buzzards now, they've got no fear of people at all….if I wanted to shoot them, it would be pretty straight forward"'.

The research paper stated that the value of predator control was associated with the perceived ease of the method in question which included shooting, trapping and poisoning. The latter was exclusively in relation to rats usually as part of a yearly cycle linked to opportunity and availability. 'As a consequence of access to guns, traps and poison, there was little variation in gamekeepers' perceptions of their behavioral control over predator management as they considered it technically easy to kill most predators'. Not protected species. 'This, hypothetically, included those protected by law: "A lot of buzzards now, they've got no fear of people at all… if I wanted to shoot them, it would be pretty straightforward to be honest".

The article is unacceptable and beneath the standard expected of The Times. We therefore expect an immediate retraction so as not to mislead the public any further.

Yours faithfully,

Adrian Blackmore
Director of Shooting
Countryside Alliance