Hen harriers, again

Last week we mentioned that Mark Avery had come out fighting on behalf of hen harriers (see here). Today he’s back on the same subject, knocking at Natural England’s door to try and find out what has happened to 119 hen harriers that have been radio and satellite-tagged since 2002 (see here).

He’s not the only one who’s been asking questions of Natural England about missing hen harriers. Last November we blogged about a satellite-tagged hen harrier from the Langholm Project that had mysteriously ‘disappeared’ (see here). Natural England are in charge of the hen harrier satellite tag data from Langholm. In December, MSP Elaine Murray asked Scottish Environment Minister Stewart Stevenson how much he knew about all of the missing hen harriers that had been satellite tagged at Langholm. His response was vague (here) and didn’t shine any light on what might have happened (notably he failed to mention that the last known signals of many of these young birds just happened to come from grouse moors).

‘Ah’, cried the grouse shooting lobby, ‘but no dead birds were discovered so you can’t assume that they died on a grouse moor’. Of course no dead bodies were discovered. The Langholm Project protocol for investigating the disapearance of their young tagged harriers was to first call up the landowner where the last signal had come from and ask permission to visit the estate to search for the bird! That’s as stupid as a police commander phoning up a suspected drug dealer and telling him the police are coming to search his house later that day so he’d better be ready!

It’s interesting that Natural England were put in charge of all the hen harrier satellite tag data from the Langholm Project (a project that is based in Scotland). Why was that? Was it perhaps because they’d done so well in protecting (keeping secret) all the hen harrier satellite tag data in England since 2002? Both projects have received a considerable amount of public funding – why are we not entitled to read the results?

It’s worth re-visiting something we blogged about at the end of March (here) concerning the UK parliamentary audit on wildlife crime. It included a statement from the Moorland Association (pro-grouse shooting crowd) about hen harriers:

The scale of crime against the hen harrier and its impact on the hen harrier population has been overstated and is misleading. A lack of breeding success on grouse moors does not automatically mean that laws have been broken. There are many, many more birds in England than four successfully nesting pairs, which can be seen over grouse moor during migration and at winter roost sites.

Until a full set of special rules allowing the positive management of hen harriers breeding on grouse moors is forthcoming from the Environment Council’s Hen Harrier Dialogue, moorland owners are within their rights and the law to deter the birds from settling on their moors to breed.”

That kind of says it all, doesn’t it?

Crow traps: what you should know part 3

This article follows on from Crow traps: what you should know part 1 (here) and part 2 (here). We haven’t been able to find a detailed, up to date article on this subject so we’ve taken information from a variety of sources including the police, Paw Scotland, SNH, RSPB, OneKind, SSPCA and the Raptor Study Groups. This is just our interpretation of the available information and doesn’t constitute an official, legal interpretation. Who knows, maybe PAW Scotland will produce something more definitive in the near future…

How to tell the difference between a legally-operated and an illegally-operated crow cage trap.

As we discussed in part 2, it is not always easy to determine whether a trap is being legally-operated because some of the conditions that the trap operator must comply with under the terms of the general licence can be quite ambiguous. Quite often the distinction between a legally and an illegally-operated trap is blurred. It helps if you are already aware of the conditions of the general licence (see here for licences 1-3 used by crow trap operators) as although there is ambiguity on some issues, there are other things that are easier to recognise as an indication of almost certain illegal use.

Almost certainly illegal

1. An operational trap must display a tag or a sign with the telephone number of the local police station or Police Wildlife Crime Officer as well as a police-issued trap code number that allows the police to identify the trap owner. If you find a crow cage trap that’s being used without one of these signs it is being illegally-operated. Don’t be fooled by a sign that doesn’t contain these numbers but says something like, ‘RSPB bird conservation project”. We are aware that some trap operators have tried to trick the general public with misleading and sometimes fraudulent signs.

2. The type of bird used as a decoy inside the trap is restricted to certain species of corvids (check the specific general licences for current lists). If the decoy bird is anything other than a permitted decoy species, the trap is being illegally-operated. Particular attention should be paid if the decoy is a raven or a pigeon/dove. These are definitely NOT permitted decoy species and are an indication that the trap is probably being used illegally to attract non-target species (ravens and raptors).

3. The decoy bird(s) must not be tethered, blinded or maimed. If it is, the trap is being illegally-operated.

4. The decoy bird(s) must have ‘adequate’ food and water. The term ‘adequate’ is ambiguous and will be discussed in the ‘possibly illegal’ category below. However, if food and water is not present at all, the trap is being illegally-operated.

5. The decoy bird(s) must be provided with a ‘suitable’ perch that does not cause discomfort to the bird’s feet. The term ‘suitable’ is ambiguous and will be discussed in the ‘possibly illegal’ category below. However, if no perch is provided at all, the trap is being illegally-operated.

6. The decoy bird(s) must be provided with ‘adequate’ shelter with ‘adequate’ protection from the prevailing wind and rain. As before, the term ‘adequate’ is ambiguous and will be discussed in the ‘possibly illegal’ category below. However, if no shelter has been provided at all, the trap is being illegally-operated.

7. If there are dead birds inside the trap (either target or non-target species) that have been there for longer than 24 hours (i.e. they are decomposed or skeletal) then the trap is being illegally-operated. Trap operators are required to inspect each operational trap at least once every day at intervals of no more than 24 hours, except where severe weather prohibits. Dead or sickly birds must be immediately removed from the trap.

8. If the trap is not in use (no decoy bird(s)) but the trap door or a panel has not been either removed from the site completely or taken off the trap and secured with a locked padlock, then the trap is being illegally-operated. Wedging the door open with a boulder or a log is not enough – the door or a panel must be removed completely.

Possibly illegal

1. If a decoy bird has not been provided with ‘adequate’ food and water. ‘Adequate’ is open to interpretation and is highly subjective. If the water is filthy and covered in algae, is it considered ‘adequate’? What constitutes ‘adequate’ food for a carrion crow? Usually they are given dead rabbits or hares inside these traps but we’ve also seen dog biscuits and grain!

2. If a decoy bird has not been provided with an ‘adequate’ perch that does not cause discomfort to the bird’s feet. Again, this is ambiguous and depends on the decoy species. The perch should be thick enough for the bird to perch without its toes curling around and digging into its foot, which could cause injury and pain. So a strand of wire stretched across the inside of the trap is unlikely to be considered an ‘adequate’ perch.

3. If a decoy bird has not been provided with ‘adequate’ shelter with ‘adequate’ protection from the prevailing wind and rain. According to a OneKind report, some cage traps have been seen with a piece of plastic less than the size of an A4 sheet of paper serving as a shelter. Is this ‘adequate’? Probably not because it won’t offer shelter from the prevailing wind and rain. Other traps have been seen with the soggy pulp of a former cardboard box stuck in the corner – clearly inadequate!

4. If a decoy bird looks sickly or injured. The bird may have become sick or injured itself since the trap operator’s last visit, so the trap operator hasn’t committed an offence (unless he fails to remove the bird at his next visit). However, the bird could have a long-term sickness or injury (e.g. feathers worn down to stumps and bleeding carpals: injuries consistent with long-term attempts to escape by flying at the side of the cage) in which case the bird should have been removed and it’s highly probable an offence has been committed.

5. If there are multiple birds inside the trap. Crow cage trap operators are permitted to use more than one decoy bird as long as it is one of the permitted corvid decoy species (as opposed to a Larsen trap where only a single decoy is permitted). However, these decoy birds are not marked in any way as to distinguish them from any other trapped bird. This makes it difficult to determine whether the trap has been left un-inspected for longer than 24 hours (because the trap operator can claim all the birds inside the trap are being used as decoys).

6. If there is a raptor (or another non-target species) caught inside the trap. It’s important to know that it is not illegal to accidentally catch a raptor or other non-target species inside a crow cage trap. It is illegal, however, for the trap operator not to release the bird, unharmed, immediately on discovery. How do you tell whether the raptor has been inside the trap for longer than 24 hours? It’s very difficult, unless you saw it inside the trap more than 24 hours previously, and even then this would be difficult to prove because (a) unless it is uniquely marked how do you know it’s the same bird?, and (b) the trap operator could claim the bird was released and has since re-entered the trap since the last inspection! If the raptor is dead and decomposed it is highly probable an offence has been committed.

What should you do if you suspect a trap is being illegally-operated?

1. Be suspicious.

2. Take photographs and/or video.

3. Record your location (either GPS or map reference if possible).

4. Record the date and time.

5. If you are with anyone, make sure they’ve seen what you’ve seen (corroborative evidence).

6. Don’t be fooled by anything written on the trap sign, even if it says ‘This is a legal trap’. It may well be a legal trap but it might be being illegally-operated.

7. Don’t interfere with the trap (but see point 5 below) or you could be prosecuted for criminal damage.

8. Beware of hidden cameras pointing at the trap and also be aware that some of these cameras can also record your voice!

9. As soon as possible after discovery, report your concerns to the authorities (see section below).

10. If the trap contains a raptor that looks in good health, you need to report it IMMEDIATELY (see below for your choice of reporting agencies). You shouldn’t be tempted to release the bird yourself (unless there is a genuine welfare concern, see below). If none of the reporting agencies can respond in good time, you should call the police again and request permission to release the bird yourself, as long as you are certain it is uninjured. Make sure you get the name or number of the police officer you speak to!

What should you do if you are concerned about the welfare of a trapped bird?

If you discover a trap that contains any bird that is in distress or is injured, you have a decision to make about what to do.

1. The recommended advice from the police is to call them (using the telephone number on the trap sign, assuming there is one). However, calling the police can be very hit and miss, depending on your location. Some police forces will send someone out straight away. Sometimes there may be a considerable delay if the police are busy with other call-outs. Sometimes you won’t be able to get a police response because the WCO is off-duty or just not answering the phone! Sometimes the police may call the trap operator and ask him to attend – this could be dangerous as the trap operator may take the injured bird (let’s say it’s a protected raptor species) and pretend to be conveying it to a vet when his real intention (when out of sight) may be much more sinister.

3. Apart from the police, the only other agency that has the statutory authority to investigate a potential animal welfare incident is the SSPCA. The benefit to calling the SSPCA first is that they have a 24 hour animal helpline (enter this into your phone now! – 03000 999 999). This phone number is specifically for calls about animal welfare incidents and SSPCA officers are trained to handle distressed animals. The SSPCA can attend an incident and remove an animal for veterinary care without needing permission from the police. They are also trained to recognise whether an offence has been committed and can prosecute without any help from the police. The SSPCA would be our first port of call every time.

4. Many people would think of the RSPB as an obvious first call but the RSPB has no more authority than you. They would have to involve one of the official reporting agencies (police or SSPCA) for anything to happen so it could be argued that you are wasting time by calling the RSPB first, although they would be a good source of advice and if the other two agencies can’t respond in good time the RSPB would be your next best bet. Tel: 0131 317 4100.

5. If none of the above agencies can respond in good time, which is rare but sometimes does happen, and you genuinely believe that the injured/distressed bird requires immediate help, any decent person would remove it and get it to a vet as fast as possible (as seen in the recent incident at Lindertis Estate here). This may involve damage to the trap (e.g. if the padlock has to be broken to open the door). Would this result in a criminal prosecution against the person trying to rescue a distressed or injured bird? It might seem unlikely but see here for a recent warning written by Scottish Land and Estates and published on the PAW Scotland website!! Would a prosecution against the rescuer depend on whether the trap was being legally or illegally-operated? It’s well documented that it may be an offence to interfere with a legally set trap, but we are often advised that if we find what we think is an illegally set trap (e.g. a pole trap) then we should disable it. Now we’ve all seen some of the strange decisions made by COPFS in the recent past but to criminalise the action of someone who is genuinely trying to help an injured/distressed animal and who has tried to involve the reporting agencies but without success, would doubtless result in public uproar. We’re not aware of any prosecutions of this type and we might expect COPFS to be able to tell the difference between someone who had a malicious intent to release a bird because they didn’t agree with it’s confinement and someone wanting to help a distressed animal.  It will probably help if there is photographic and/or video evidence of the distressed/injured bird inside the trap and if the actions have been reported to the SSPCA or the local police.

Please note: this advice goes against that given by PAW Scotland (see here) who say don’t attempt to remove a bird (although they don’t specify whether they’re talking about an injured/distressed bird, or just a trapped but healthy bird) but then they don’t offer any other advice if the reporting agencies fail to attend! It seems that this is a subject that requires greater clarity for all concerned. And of course, let’s not forget that if all trap operators were responsible individuals who could be trusted to operate within the law then a lot of the issues raised here would be redundant.

Two more sea eagles poisoned in Ireland

And so it continues….

Two more sea eagles have been found poisoned in Ireland, one in County Mayo and one in County Donegal. One of the birds had also been shot.

Article in Irish Examiner here

Article in Mayo Advertiser here

The Director of the Golden Eagle Trust (the group behind the reintroduction of golden eagles, white-tailed eagles and red kites to Ireland) says he fears a pair of nesting golden eagles which have ‘disappeared’  from County Donegal may also have been poisoned (see here).

Sea eagles blamed for destroying wildlife on Mull

Is this really 2012, or are we back in 1912?

A community councillor on the Isle of Mull has accused sea eagles of destroying wildlife on the island. In the same article, reported in the Herald (see here), a farmer says the sea eagles are killing his and his neighbour’s lambs.

We’ve been here so many times before (e.g. see here and links within, that point to several scientific studies that have demonstrated sea eagles have a ‘minimal impact’ on lamb survival). Perhaps the councillor and the farmer would like to read the latest (2010) SNH commissioned report on the impact of sea eagles on lambs on the Gairloch peninsula; a study that was commissioned after farmers claimed eagles [three pairs] had eaten 200 lambs between them! Unsurprisingly, the evidence from the subsequent study did not support these claims. SNH report here.

Most islanders on Mull are well-known for their outstanding long-term support and protection of the reintroduced sea eagles; perhaps they might want to look carefully at the list of candidates in the next round of councillor elections. Although it’s not just councillors with strange opinions on sea eagles (see here)!

Bits and blogs

Some sad news from the Irish Republic – the white-tailed eagle pair who were the first sea eagles to attempt to breed in Ireland for over 100 years (see here) has failed. The birds abandoned their nest on Tuesday evening. In a double blow, the remains of a young satellite-tagged sea eagle have been discovered in County Mayo. The cause of death is still being investigated (see here for a report in the Irish Examiner).

In other news…Mark Avery has come out fighting over the English hen harrier debacle. This morning’s blog (here) focuses on Natural England’s lack of transparency over the results of their ten-year hen harrier satellite tracking project. Good for him, and much stronger than the blog he wrote on Monday (here) where he discussed the poisoned red kites found in the Chilterns. He asked readers to connect the dots but when they did, he claimed he couldn’t see the same picture. Perfectly understandable of course but totally improbable that Mark hadn’t joined the dots within about five seconds flat.

There’s another blogger in town. Stuart Housden is the Director of RSPB Scotland and has kicked off his own [RSPB] blog this month. It was pleasing to see that his third post was about wildlife crime sentencing in Scotland (see here). We’re waiting to see whether he blogs about this weekend’s inaugral Scottish Birdfair. As RSPB Scotland Director, it was probably Stuart’s ill-informed decision to co-host the event at Hopetoun; we’ve blogged before about this incredible lack of judgement (see here and here).

If anyone is attending the Scottish Birdfair this weekend, you might want to pay a visit to the Scottish Land and Estates table (the Scottish landowners’ representative body) and ask them whether any of the following are (a) members of their organisation and (b) signed up the Wildlife Estates Initiative:

Aswanley Estate, Auch Estate, Blythe Farm, Breconside Farm, Culter Allers Farm, Dunecht Estate, Edradynate Estate, Farr and Kyllachy Estate, Glenbuchat Estate, Glenlochy Moor Estate, Glenogil Estate, Glenturret Estate, Innes House Estate, Invercauld Estate, Inverinate Estate, Lawesknow Farm, Leadhills Estate, Lindertis Estate, Lochindorb Estate, Millden Estate, Morvich Estate, Moy Estate, Raeshaw Estate, Redmyre Estate, Seafield Estate, Skibo Estate, Sluie Estate….

Why these particular estates? Oh no special reason, just randomly selected from across the country…If the SLE is unable to give you a credible answer you could always ask them to explain why the organisation supports government-issued licences to kill buzzards.

The real reason English hen harriers are on brink of extinction

The news media are full of stories today about the dire situation for breeding hen harriers in England. With only a single known breeding pair this year, we are about to lose this species. Many think that persecution by gamekeepers is to blame, but we can now exclusively reveal that blade-wielding eagle thugs are responsible for wiping out hen harriers.

Undercover operatives from the Modern Poisoners’ Society have sent us photographic evidence of a knife-handling training camp where hundreds of eagles gathered last year to sharpen their blades and practice stabbing and slicing actions. Readers will be shocked to learn that this secret camp was not in Yemen or Pakistan, but was actually in the heart of England. Squadrons of eagles secretly practised their low-level night flights over the Derwent reservoir in preparation for Operation Chastise: their revenge on hen harriers for eating all the red grouse. Unfortunately there weren’t any hen harriers in the area so the eagles stabbed all the Upper Derwent goshawks instead. The bodies of the dead goshawks were wrapped in carpet and weighted down with stones before being dumped in the reservoir. The sneaky eagles then removed the goshawk eggs from the nests and smashed them on the ground to make it look like gamekeepers had been responsible.

Albert Hogburn, Head of Truth at the Modern Poisoners’ Society said: “Gamekeepers have been vindicated. Perhaps now people will see eagles for the vermin they really are, destroying all biodiversity in their path. The best way to teach eagles about knife crime is to poison them. Once they’ve stabbed all the harriers they’ll just move on to innocent children. It’s basic ecology. We’ve applied for lottery funding so we can put rings of poison around every school in England. It’s the only way to keep our children safe”.

Donald Spewing-Moore from the Royal Bird Protection Society said: “I wish that twat Hogburn would cut it out. Cut it out, geddit? Did you see what I did there? Did you? But in all seriousness, I can think of better uses for that knife, although I would prefer to use a triple X30 stainless steel model with an official Rockwell hardness rating of 52 + 2 and combine 0.3% carbon and 13% chrome for long-lasting cutting performance and high corrosion resistance”.

English hen harriers right on the brink

The RSPB has issued a press release warning that the future for England’s most threatened raptor – the hen harrier – is looking perilous as the species teeters on the brink of extinction as a breeding bird.

Early reports suggest that only one pair is showing signs of nesting in England this year, down from the heady heights of four known breeding pairs last year.

The reason? Well you already know it – persecution. For the persecution deniers,  the government-funded report that spells it out can be found here.

RSPB press release here

Crow traps: what you should know part 2

Following on from our earlier blog – Crow traps: what you should know part 1 (here)

The following information concerns the use of crow cage traps in Scotland; they are also used in other parts of the UK although the terms of use differ slightly (see here for information on their use in England, here for Wales and here for Northern Ireland).

What is a crow trap and why should we be concerned about them?

There are various types of animal traps in use in the countryside but the two we focus on in this article are the ‘ladder’ and ‘funnel’ crow cage traps. These are large, walk-in traps usually constructed with a wooden frame and wire mesh netting. A decoy bird (often a carrion crow but certain other decoy species are also permitted) is placed inside the trap to attract corvids or other target species. Birds that are attracted to the trap can enter via the roof, either through the horizontal slots of the ‘ladder’ or via a ‘funnel’. Once inside the trap it is virtually impossible for the birds to escape unaided. These trapped birds are usually destined to certain death at the hands of the trap operator who is legally authorised to kill them, subject to certain conditions (discussed in Part 3). In some rare circumstances, raptor workers deploy temporary crow cage traps to capture buzzards for marking projects, such as wing-tagging etc. Obviously these buzzards are released as soon as they’ve been marked; they aren’t killed by the trap operator!

There are many concerns surrounding the use of crow cage traps (some we’ll discuss below) but the over-riding concern is the indiscriminate nature of these traps, which means that species other than the target species can be, and often are, caught by gamekeepers, e.g. buzzards, goshawks, golden eagles etc. It is not illegal to (accidentally) trap these non-target species, but it is an offence for the trap operator not to release them, unharmed, at the earliest opportunity. More on this in Part 3.

Crow trap use is governed by a general licence, issued annually by Scottish Natural Heritage (see here). These licences are issued for the purpose of either (a) the conservation of wild birds, (b) to prevent serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables and fruit, and (c) to protect public health, public safety and prevent the spread of disease. Trap operators need not ‘apply’ for an individual licence, hence the name ‘general’ licence. Each general licence is subject to strict conditions (discussed in Part 3). If the trap operator complies with all the conditions of the general licence then the use of the crow trap is legal. However, in practice some of these conditions are ambiguous at best, and this is recognised by SNH who undertake regular consultations aimed at clarifying the terms of use (e.g. see here for their latest consultation plans).

Before we get in to the nitty gritty of how to recognise a legal trap from an illegal trap it’s worth mentioning that the RSPB (and other groups such as OneKind) has long campaigned for a more thorough review of the legal framework concerning these general licences for crow traps, particularly in relation to potential breaches of European legislation, including the EC Birds Directive. For anyone interested in the RSPB’s position, this document from 2007 (here) is informative.

Other concerns include the fact that there isn’t any effective monitoring of the impact these traps have on both target and non-target species. Crow traps are in use across Scotland year-round but are especially associated with upland grouse moors. It isn’t known exactly how many crow traps are in operation in Scotland but a conservative estimate would be in the hundreds, but probably nearer the thousands. There is currently no requirement for trap operators to record and/or report the number of target and non-target species caught and killed inside a trap (and even if there was such a requirement, who would believe the submitted figures? No gamekeeper is going to admit to illegally killing a protected species!). So how can the regulatory body (SNH) monitor the impact of crow trap use when they haven’t got a clue just how many traps are in use and how many birds and of what species are being killed each year? The follow-on question is, how can these general licences still be issued when the regulatory body cannot justify, in quantifiable terms, the need for lethal control measures?

Some may argue that there is now a record of the number of traps in use because recent changes to the general licences now require that a sign is attached to each trap with a unique identifying code issued by the local police force. However, this unique code is not assigned to an individual trap or to an individual trap operator, but rather to a landowner (or occupier) such as a sporting estate or a farm. This means that an estate owner can use the same code for multiple traps on his/her land (e.g. they may have just one trap or they may have 50+ traps depending on the size of the estate); the point is that the authorities do not have any means of knowing how many traps are in use on a particular estate because they only issue one code per estate.

From a law enforcement perspective, this use of a single identifying code for multiple traps makes it almost impossible to prosecute an individual for illegal use of the trap. For example, if a golden eagle is found dead inside a trap, and it’s obviously been there for a long time, then an offence has probably been committed (because traps must be checked at least once in every 24 hour period – see Part 3). Investigators may attend the scene but find that the trap is located on a large estate that employs multiple gamekeepers. None of the gamekeepers admit responsibility, so how does the investigator identify the individual responsible? A prosecution cannot commence unless an individual suspect is identified. It’s the same loophole we’ve seen used so many times when poisoned bait has been found on a large estate; nobody admits responsibility for laying the bait and thus the perpetrator(s) escape justice. It is only when the trap is located on a smaller estate where a single gamekeeper is employed that there is any chance of a prosecution.

Talking of loopholes….we’ve touched on this briefly in previous posts….in 2008 a new condition was added to the terms of use of the general licences. That new condition was that anyone who had a previous wildlife crime conviction was not allowed to use the general licence unless their conviction was considered ‘spent’, i.e. after five years from conviction. (Although even if you did have a recent conviction you could still apply for use of the licence and each case would be considered on merit, so it’s not quite the draconian condition that some imply). However, in 2009 the condition (of being banned for five years) was modified and we don’t recall any consultation about the insertion of this modification! The new modification says that you can still use the general licence if the sentence you received for your wildlife crime was an ‘admonishment’. Talk about a get-out clause! You might think this modification was quite reasonable, after all, an admonishment (effectively a telling off) is only given for minor offences, right? WRONG!!! Because there aren’t any mandatory sentences for wildlife crime offences in Scotland, a sheriff can choose a sentence at will (within the boundaries of sentencing limits at a Sheriff court, of course). In 2010, a sheriff imposed an admonishment on Graham Kerr, a gamekeeper on the Redmyre Estate, for possession of the banned pesticides Carbofuran and Alphachloralose (see here). The maximum penalty available was a £5000 fine and/or a six month prison term, reflecting the gravity of this type of offence. Had Kerr not also been handed a £400 fine for shooting a buzzard on the Redmyre Estate, his admonishment would have allowed him to continue using the general licence to operate a crow cage trap. In our opinion this is outrageous. What’s the point of having a condition of a five-year ban for a wildlife criminal if that condition is modified based on the whim of a sheriff’s sentencing choice rather than the nature of the actual criminal offence committed? It’s total nonsense. Why was this modification added to the terms of the general licence and who instigated its inclusion in 2009 and who approved it? Was anyone given the opportunity to object to its inclusion? Perhaps a Freedom of Information request is called for here…

This leads on to another concern…who is actually monitoring the trap operators? How do we know that someone with a recent criminal conviction (who was given a stronger sentence than an admonishment) is not still operating a crow cage trap? We know that many estates don’t sack their gamekeepers following a wildlife crime conviction, and we know of at least one estate where a previously convicted gamekeeper (guilty of raptor persecution) is now employed as a ‘gardener’!!

The potential for the misuse of crow traps is well known amongst raptor workers.  Previous reports on this issue have been produced by the RSPB (e.g. see here). Although this 2004 report is now fairly dated and some of the report’s recommendations have since been implemented, there is still a great deal of concern that crow traps are still being deliberately used to target raptor species, particularly buzzards and goshawks and in some areas, golden eagles.

So what can we do about it? In Part 3 we’ll explain the basics of what makes a crow cage trap legal, what makes one illegal, and the blurred line in between the two. We’ll also explain what members of the public should and shouldn’t do if you find a crow trap that you suspect is being operated illegally.

Gonshaw: banned from Scotland for life (during breeding season)

Top, top, top news! Serial egg collector, Matthew Simon Gonshaw, has today been jailed for his latest egg-theft crimes but more importantly, he has been banned from entering Scotland during the bird breeding season, FOR LIFE!

Gonshaw, recently the recipient of an ASBO giving him a ten-year ban from Scotland, was also sentenced to six months in jail (his 5th jail term!) after he was caught nicking bird eggs off the Isle of Rum last year.

BBC news release here

COPFS press release here

Well done to everyone involved and massive kudos to Sheriff Margaret Neilson at Inverness Sheriff Court for finally delivering a decent sentence for a persistent wildlife crime offender. Now let’s see if other Sheriffs can start to follow suit…

Previous Gonshaw posts here, here and here.

Another golden eagle mysteriously ‘disappears’

Thanks to Dave (contributor) for highlighting this one:

http://www.raptortrack.org/category/golden-eagle/angus-26/