NGO Challenges Unverified Claims Published by the Craven Herald

On 13 March, the Craven Herald & Pioneer published an article titled “Birds of prey petition has now gained nearly 5,000 signatures.” The piece focused entirely on the Friends of the Dales charity and its latest campaign, Eyes on the Skies, together with the petition they are promoting. The article repeated the charity’s claim of “152 incidents of persecution or suspicious disappearances between 2009 and 2023,” yet offered no scrutiny of the figures, no transparency about their origin, and no balancing evidence. It did not seek comment from the police, the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation (NGO), landowners, or anyone who works within the Dales or on moorland. Instead, it presented a single, unverified narrative that appeared designed to generate clicks rather than inform readers.

 

This is particularly disappointing given the newspaper’s own description of its role. The Craven Herald describes itself as "the local weekly for Skipton and the Yorkshire Dales" and has a 150‑year history of reporting town‑by‑town and dale‑by‑dale. As such, its readers reasonably expect reporting that is accurate, balanced and mindful of community impact. When a publication with such a long local legacy chooses to repeat unverified claims without checking them against statutory data, it fails to meet the standard it sets for itself.

 

It also fails to meet the standard required of it by its own regulator. As a title regulated by IPSO, the Craven Herald is subject to the Editors’ Code of Practice, which requires care not to publish inaccurate or misleading information and places obligations relevant to discrimination and harassment. Repeating unverified figures without balance appears inconsistent with those standards. Accuracy is not optional; it is a core responsibility of regulated journalism.

 

The article also quoted a spokesman from Friends of the Dales who stated that “there were 152 confirmed incidents in the area, including 41 involving hen harriers. These crimes range from poisoning and trapping to shooting, often taking place in remote upland areas where detection is difficult.” It is essential to be clear: “incidents” are not crimes. An “incident” may include a report, a suspicion, a rumour, a natural death, or a case where no wrongdoing is found. Presenting all “incidents” as “crimes” is misleading and irresponsible.

 

The NGO’s verified data shows that the vast majority of bird of prey deaths are due to natural causes such as starvation, exposure, disease, predation, road traffic collisions and, in recent years, avian influenza. These facts matter. They provide context, proportion and accuracy, all of which were missing from the article.

 

Since 2021, the NGO has submitted annual Freedom of Information requests to every police force in the UK and Northern Ireland and has carried out detailed reviews of Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme (WIIS) reports. These are the statutory bodies responsible for investigating wildlife crime and suspected pesticide incidents. Their data provides the only verifiable benchmark available. In 2024, WIIS investigated 69 birds of prey in England, confirming five as illegally killed and only one of them in North Yorkshire. Police forces investigated 50 bird of prey incidents in England, with North Yorkshire Police recording nine, and only one confirmed illegal offence: the recent Thomas Munday case, which has already been successfully prosecuted. These are the official figures, and they do not support the much higher numbers promoted by Friends of the Dales or repeated by the newspaper.

 

The consequences of publishing misleading information are not theoretical. Hostility towards gamekeepers has risen sharply in recent years, with individuals, families and livelihoods being unfairly targeted. When inaccurate claims are presented as fact, they fuel division and mistrust within the very communities the Craven Herald claims to serve.

 

The NGO condemns all forms of wildlife crime unequivocally, and any member found guilty of such an offence is expelled. But we also insist that public debate must be grounded in verified evidence, not untested estimates or click‑bait headlines. Our members deserve fairness, and the public deserves accuracy.

 

A recent report by the NGO sets out practical steps that would help create a trusted, shared evidence base, including:
• making wildlife crime a recordable offence;
• standardising police recording fields;
• publishing underlying data and methods for high‑profile reports;
• and encouraging collaborative review between conservation bodies, land‑management organisations, forensic ecologists and policing leads.

 

These measures would improve transparency for everyone.

 

We have written formally to the Editor of the Craven Herald & Pioneer and the CEO and trustees of Friends of the Dales to challenge the figures they have published and the way they have been presented. We have also invited the newspaper’s reporter and representatives of the charity to meet with us and visit a moor in the Dales. Seeing the conservation work carried out daily by professional gamekeepers, and reviewing the evidence we have gathered, would provide a far more accurate picture of what is happening on the ground.

 

We will continue to defend our members, challenge misinformation, and promote an evidence‑led conversation about wildlife, conservation and the future of our uplands.

 

A further update on this matter will be provided when available.