SSPCA consultation responses – where are they?

sspca logoIn March this year, the Scottish Government finally launched the long-awaited (and long overdue….by three years) public consultation on whether the investigatory powers of the SSPCA should be increased to allow them to formally investigate more types of wildlife crime than their current remit (see here).

The consultation opened in March and closed on 1st September. We’re not expecting to hear the Government’s decision until later this autumn/winter.

However, their official consultation document included the following statement:

Next steps in the process

Where respondents have given permission for their response to be made public and after we have checked that they contain no potentially defamatory material, responses will be made available to the public on the Scottish Government website and in the Scottish Government library by 11th October 2014.

Today is 14th October 2014. We’ve looked for the responses on the Government’s website but we can’t seem to find them. Has anyone else found them?

We’ve seen the odd response published here and there (e.g. from the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, from OneKind, from Scottish Land & Estates, from the Law Society of Scotland, and from the former Head of the National Wildlife Crime Unit), but we’ve yet to see the full set of formal responses.

Where are they? We’d really like to see them…..

Rural Payments Agency ‘to consider action’ against Stody Estate

Five days ago we blogged about the millions of pounds of farming subsidies that have been given to Stody Estate over the last few years (see here). For new readers, Stody Estate was in the news last week because their (now former) gamekeeper, Allen Lambert, was found guilty of poisoning 11 raptors (10 buzzards and 1 sparrowhawk) on the estate, as well as other related poison offences (see here and here).

While we wait to find out Lambert’s sentence (due 6th November), we encouraged blog readers to contact the Rural Payments Agency (RPA) to ask whether any action would be taken against Stody Estate as the conviction implied they were in breach of the terms and conditions of their subsidy-fest.

Well done to all those who took the time to contact the RPA – we know from our site stats that at least 40 of you did.

To the RPA’s credit, they have responded very quickly. We’ve seen a number of the responses – some of which have already been shared as comments on this blog, and others which were shared with us privately via email.

From the RPA responses that we’ve seen, it looks as though the RPA is going to take a closer look at Stody Estate. The most common response has been as follows:

I can confirm that RPA will consider what action can be taken under the cross compliance rules in respect of the offences for which the gamekeeper was convicted“.

However, there was one RPA response that didn’t sound quite as promising:

RPA can confirm there is no investigation ongoing“.

Hmm.

As some commentators have already suggested, it’s worth keeping hold of the reference number given at the end of each of the RPA responses so that we can follow up in a few months time to see what action, if any, the RPA has taken.

Lambert 9 bz

Six dead buzzards in Aberdeen: an update

Last week we blogged about the apparent discovery of ‘six dead buzzards’ that had been found in a field in Aberdeenshire (see here).

Almost a week later, and after “extensive inquiries” and an examination of the bodies by experts…..it turns out they weren’t six dead buzzards after all. They weren’t even raptors! (We don’t know what they actually were – their identity hasn’t been revealed).

For God’s sake. It’s reminiscent of the “six skinned badgers” story that emerged earlier this year. They turned out to be the remains of roe deer (see here).

Doesn’t inspire much confidence, does it?

STV news article here

UPDATE 10/10/14: According to the P&J, these carcasses were turkeys or chickens! You couldn’t make this up! See here.

Hen harrier Sid ‘disappears’ in North Yorkshire

sidSid was one of the successfully-fledged hen harriers at Langholm this year. He was satellite-tagged on 3rd July and his movements have been mapped and shared on the Making the Most of Moorlands blog all summer.

In late September Sid flew to North Yorkshire. His satellite tag stopped transmitting from an area of moorland near Hawes. The location has apparently been searched but there’s no sign of Sid or of his sat tag.

Nobody will be surprised by this news, nor the proximity of his last signal to driven grouse moors. Cue outpourings of ‘sadness’ from the usual suspects and the long list of possible explanations for his ‘disappearance’ apart from the most probable one.

The petition to ban driven grouse shooting has reached 18,000 signatures. It’s time it had some more – sign here, for Sid.

Photo of Sid, from the Making the Most of Moorlands blog.

RSPB publish last known positions of hen harriers Sky & Hope

Last month, we learned that two of this year’s English hen harrier chicks, Sky & Hope, had ‘disappeared’ in suspicious circumstances, just a few weeks after fledging (see here).

The RSPB has now published their last known locations in Bowland, Lancashire, accompanied by a plea for information about what happened to these two young harriers.

How refreshing to see the actual locations mapped out and made available in the public domain – Natural England, take note!

Here is the map.  The final satellite tag transmissions of Hope and Sky are somewhere inside these red circles. For further details of these sites and the dates of the last tag transmissions, please read the RSPB’s Skydancer blog here.

Sky & Hope buffer

 

Cairngorms National Park Authority wants ‘action’ against raptor persecution

Duncan BrydenThe Convenor of the Cairngorms National Park Authority (CPNA), Duncan Bryden, has written to the Environment Minister to tell him that continued incidents of raptor persecution and ‘disappearing birds’ in the eastern side of the Cairngorms National Park “threatens to undermine the reputation of the National Park as a high quality wildlife tourism destination“.

He has asked for the Minister to attend a meeting of stakeholders in the Eastern Cairngorms (including RSPB Scotland and, er, Scottish Land & Estates) to discuss ways to address this on-going issue.

That’ll be interesting, seeing as though SLE continue to deny the extent of the problem (e.g. see here) and only last year gave membership to the ranks of SLE to the North Glenbuchat Estate – a grouse moor in the National Park that has been at the centre of wildlife crime investigations for years, most recently following the ‘disappearance’ in April of the first fledged white-tailed eagle in eastern Scotland for 200 years – it’s final signal reportedly came from North Glenbuchat estate (see here). The eagle is presumed dead but it’s body has not been recovered, just like the bodies of three other young satellite tagged eagles that ‘disappeared’ in the area in recent years. The body of a fifth eagle was found on North Glenbuchat Estate in 2011 – it had been poisoned with Carbofuran. As had a poisoned buzzard, also found in 2011, as well as a poisoned bait. A dead short-eared owl was also found in 2011 – it had been shot and stuffed under a rock.

Good luck to the CNPA in trying to oust the raptor-killing criminals from the National Park and well done Duncan Bryden for taking a stand.

Download: CNPA letter to Paul Wheelhouse May2014

Download: Paul Wheelhouse response to CNPA

CNP map

 

Dumfriesshire man charged with possession of banned poison

Michael Johnston, 45, of Pretoria Road, Eastriggs, Dumfriesshire has been charged with possession of the banned poison Strychnine.

Strychnine is one of eight poisons listed on the Possession of Pesticides (Scotland) Order 2005, which makes it illegal to have, let alone to use it. The other seven are: Aldicarb, Alphachloralose, Aluminium phosphide, Bendiocarb, Carbofuran, Mevinphos and Sodium cyanide. Regular readers will recognise the name of most of these poisons which have regularly been used to kill birds of prey.

Johnston is further accused of attempting to steal red diesel at Dryfesdalegate Farm, Lockerbie, in April 2014. He is also alleged to have trespassed at the farm and to have kept various types of ammunition in his vehicle.

The case was continued without plea last week at Dumfries Sheriff Court – next hearing 22 October 2014.

Latest raptor persecution deterrent has major flaw

WheelhouseFifteen months ago in July 2013, following a spate of raptor persecution incidents in Scotland, Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse announced a series of new measures aimed at further cracking down on the raptor-killing criminals.

One of those measures has finally been rolled out today – a restriction on the use of General Licences on land where evidence of raptor crime is apparent. News articles about this have appeared on the BBC news website (here), in the Scotsman (here) and on SNH’s website (here).

When this proposed measure was first announced last year, we blogged about our concerns (see here). Those concerns centred mostly on the practicalities of enforcing the new measure. Having read the details of the new measure, some of our earlier concerns have now been assuaged. Some, however, have not.

Before we discuss why we still have concerns, it’s important to recognise the significance of today’s announcement. This latest measure is directed specifically at landowners and gamekeepers. That’s very, very welcome and, in our opinion, highly significant. There’s no wishy-washy terminology here – it is being made absolutely clear that the Government acknowledges that raptor persecution is linked directly with the game-shooting industry and this latest measure is designed to target the criminals within that industry. And although in today’s press releases, Wheelhouse still insists on claiming that those responsible are a ‘criminal minority’, a statement we refute outright, it is all credit to him that he has understood the “wall of silence” that these criminals put up after a raptor-killing incident and he’s making steps to address that. Good for him.

However……the details of this latest measure reveal that it isn’t as strong a clampdown as it’s being portrayed in the media – mainly because there is one almighty get-out clause available (discussed below), but there are other problems too.

Here are the good points (in our opinion):

1. The restriction (on the use of General Licences) will be based on a civil burden of proof – much easier to demonstrate than a criminal burden of proof (but see flaw #1 below).

2. The application of the restriction will be back-dated to incidents that have taken place since 1st January 2014. Excellent.

3. The restriction will apply for a set period of three years and may be extended if further evidence of criminal activity is found within the initial restriction period. Excellent.

4. The decision to apply a restriction will be publicised on the SNH website. Excellent (as long as it provides geographic details of the areas of land under a restriction).

Here are the flaws (in our opinion):

1. The decision to apply the restriction will be based on evidence supplied to SNH by Police Scotland. What about information provided by SSPCA? The SSPCA is a statutory reporting authority and as such, it’s evidence is recognised as being equally valid in criminal prosecutions. Why must the evidence be provided by Police Scotland alone? Given the well-documented under-resourcing issues affecting how Police Scotland deals with reported wildlife crime incidents, there is a real danger that some raptor persecution incidents will slip through the net and will not be reported to SNH.

2. Once a restriction has been applied, who will monitor compliance? Police Scotland? SNH? Very doubtful. The restriction is likely to apply to incredibly remote areas of landscape, so the opportunity for the landowner to ignore the restriction, and get away with it, is massive.

get out of jail free3. There is a get-out clause available to the landowner which effectively negates the power of these new restrictions. Basically, if an area of land is under a restriction notice, individuals working on that land can still apply for an individual licence which would allow them to continue their activities as though the restriction order doesn’t exist!! This get-out clause is similar to the one already in place for individuals who have been automatically banned from using the General Licence because they have a recent criminal conviction for wildlife crime – in those instances, the individual criminal may apply to SNH to effectively over-ride their automatic ban and carry on with their trapping activities as if they’ve done nothing wrong. Incredible.

The new restriction measure has been put into place presumably to act as a serious deterrent and also to provide a suitable punishment – what is the point of that, if someone can apply to continue their activities regardless of a restriction order?! Doesn’t that kind of defeat the object of bringing in the new measures in the first place? Why bother introducing new sanctions if the criminals can just side-step them?! SNH reckons that if an individual licence is approved, it will be subject to ‘strict conditions and compliance monitoring measures’. The details of those ‘strict conditions’ have not been specified, nor the details of ‘compliance monitoring measures’. What an absolute joke.

It’s important to look beyond the headlines and scrutinise the details. For interest, below are the specific details of the restriction measures announced today:

General Licence Restrictions

Framework for Implementing Restrictions

Application

The procedure will only apply to General Licences 1, 2 and 3 which are granted for the following purposes:

General Licence 1: To kill or take certain birds for the conservation of wild birds.

General Licence 2: To kill or take certain birds for the purpose of preventing serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables and fruit.

General Licence 3: To kill or take certain birds for the purpose of preserving public health, public safety and preventing the spread of disease.

Accordingly General Licences 1-3 now include the following wording: SNH reserves the right to exclude the use of this General Licence by certain persons and/or on certain areas of land where we have reason to believe that wild birds have been taken or killed by such persons and/or on such land other than in accordance with this General Licence”.

While the wording provides for the exclusion of individuals, it is the intention that where SNH has robust evidence that wild birds have been killed or taken or where there is intention to do so other than in accordance with a licence, SNH will exclude the area of land on which such evidence is found from General Licences 1, 2 and/or 3.

Individual restrictions will apply for a period of 3 years, but may be extended if evidence of further offences is obtained during this period.

This document sets out how SNH intends to implement these restrictions.

Evidence

Decisions to impose a restriction will only be based on evidence received from the Police of an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 [“the 1981 Act”] having been committed in relation to wild birds and / or where the terms of General Licences were not being complied with.  SNH has agreed an Information Sharing Protocol (ISP) with Police Scotland that allows the Police to pass on such evidence to SNH.

Examples of evidence recorded since 1st January 2014 which may be considered by SNH in any decision to impose a restriction include but are not limited to:

  • Illegally killed birds being found on the land in question;
  • Illegally poisoned baits being found on the land in question;
  • Illegal poison and / or pesticides being found on the land in question;
  • Cross-compliance decisions where the single farm payment has been withdrawn as a result of wildlife crime
  • Illegal placement, design or use of traps or methods that are not in compliance with the requirements of the General Licences.
  • Vicarious liability convictions relating to land on which General Licences are used.

The decision to restrict the use of a General Licence may be based on one or more pieces of evidence of this kind provided by Police Scotland to SNH and will be made on a case-by-case basis.  In making a decision each piece of evidence will be assessed against criteria including:

  • The strength of evidence that those activities had been carried out by owners or managers of that land
  • The number or frequency of such instances
  • The actual or potential conservation impact of those activities;
  • The age of the evidence.
  • Any history of previous, similar instances.

Recommendation to restrict

Evidence received by SNH from Police Scotland will be reviewed by SNH’s Licensing Manager. If, following that review, the Licensing Manager has reason to believe that wild birds have been killed and / or taken other than in accordance with the terms of a General Licence and considers that a restriction should be imposed, the Licensing Manager will  recommend a restriction for SNH’s approval.

Notification

The Wildlife Operations Unit Manager will notify the owners and occupiers of the land in respect of which a restriction is recommended (“the Affected Parties”), in writing (“the Notification”).  The notification will include a summary of the evidence on which the recommendation is based and will set out the reasons, the land to which the recommended restriction would apply and the duration of the recommended restriction (“the Decision Notice”). The possibility of a restriction being imposed will also be discussed with the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service to ensure there is no risk to any potential prosecutions.

Right to respond to a Notification

The Affected Parties will be entitled to submit to SNH, within 14 days of the date of the Notification, a written response to the Notification, setting out any reasons why they consider that a restriction should not be imposed.

The Wildlife Operations Unit Manager will review this in conjunction with the relevant Area Manager and the Director of Operations and where applicable will write to the Affected Parties to confirm that no restriction will be imposed.

The decision to restrict

Where no Response is received by SNH within 14 days from the date of the Notification, or where after considering any Responses that SNH continues to recommend a restriction, a restriction will be imposed.  The Director of Operations will make the decision (in consultation with the Wildlife Operations Unit Manager and the relevant Area Manager) and notify the Affected Parties in writing of the decision to impose a restriction, the reasons for that decision, the land to which the restriction applies and the duration of the restriction (“the Decision Notice”).

The Decision Notice will also be published on SNH’s licensing web pages

The right to Appeal

Where a decision is made to impose a restriction, the Affected Parties will be entitled to appeal the decision within 14 days of the date of the decision.  An appeal must be made in writing to SNH’s Director of Policy and Advice and must set out the grounds upon which it is proposed that the appeal be allowed.

An appeal shall have the effect of suspending the restriction from the date the appeal is received by the Director of Policy and Advice until the date of the Decision on Appeal, subject to the following exceptions:

  1. an appeal against the geographical extent of the restriction will only have the effect of suspending the restriction insofar as it applies to the geographical area to which the appellant contends the restriction ought not to apply;
  2. an appeal against the period of restriction shall not suspend the restriction unless any shorter period contended for by the appellant expires prior to the date of the Decision on Appeal
  • There has been an actual breach in the conditions of the GL.

The Director of Policy and Advice must notify the appellant of the outcome of the appeal in writing, setting out the reasons for his decision (“the Decision on Appeal”) and would seek to do so within four weeks of receipt of a written appeal.

Extending a period of restriction

Where, during a period of restriction, new evidence is received by SNH which provides reason to believe that wild birds have been killed and / or taken, there is intention to do so, other than in accordance with the terms of a Licence and the Licensing manager considers that the existing restriction should be extended, the Licensing Manager will recommend to the Wildlife Operations Manager that the existing restriction be extended.

The procedure to be followed by SNH in the event that the Licensing Manager proposes recommendation to extend an existing restriction is the same as applies to a recommendation to propose a restriction, and the Affected Parties rights to respond to a Notification and to Appeal against a decision to extend an existing restriction are the same as in the event of a restriction.

Options available to landowners/managers under restriction

If an area of land is subject to a restriction on the use of a General Licence then it may be possible for persons working on that land to gain an individual licence to carry out activities that were previously permitted under General Licence. To do so they would need to apply for a licence directly to SNH licensing team.  Any licence application would be judged on a case-by-case basis and would have to include the following information:

  • Justification for the particular need for a licence in reference
  • Justification for why there is no other satisfactory alternative to carrying out the licensed activity
  • Detailed plans of the work proposed to be undertaken (e.g. what methods will be employed, and where, who would be carrying out the work etc.)

If a licence was to be subsequently granted it would be subject to strict conditions and compliance monitoring measures to ensure that those conditions are being adhered to and would place reporting requirements on the licence holder for all activities permitted.

END

The Stody Millions

Following the conviction of (former) Stody Estate gamekeeper Allen Lambert for the mass poisoning of birds of prey (see here and here), has anyone seen any sort of public statement or apology from the Stody Estate, Norfolk? We haven’t…

Lambert 9 bz

We noted with interest a comment from one of our readers (Rob – see here) who suggested asking the Rural Payments Agency whether they’ll be imposing a fine on Stody Estate Ltd’s Single Farm Payment due to a breach in Statutory Management Requirement 1. (See here for details of the cross compliance regulations).

We thought we’d have a look to see how many agricultural subsidies Stody Estate Ltd has received over the years (i.e. money given to them from our taxes to help them farm on the condition they look after the wildlife and wildlife habitats under their management). Here’s what we found a couple of days ago on the excellent Farm Subsidy website (although bizarrely, when we looked today we couldn’t find it) -:

2012. Direct payments under European Agricultural Guarantee Fund: 457,570 EUR

2012. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development: 274,710 EUR

2011. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development: 498,617 EUR

2011. Direct payments under European Agricultural Guarantee Fund: 427,449 EUR

2010. Direct payments under European Agricultural Guarantee Fund: 444,050 EUR

2010. European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development: 190,052 EUR

2009. Rural development programmes: 113, 382 EUR

2009. Sugar Restructuring Fund: 58,102 EUR

2009. SPS (Single Payment Scheme): 345,027 EUR

2009. Additional amounts of aid: 139 EUR

2009. Irregularities EAGF – Assigned revenue: -842 EUR

2008. SPS (Single Payment Scheme): 366,524 EUR

2008. Rural development programmes: 135, 922 EUR

2008. Aid for energy crops: 3,630 EUR

2008. Additional amounts of aid: 232 EUR

2007. SPS (Single Payment Scheme): 356,453 EUR

2007. Aid for energy crops: 3,862 EUR

2007. Additional amounts of aid: 190 EUR

2007. Irregularities EAGF – Assigned revenue: -49 EUR

2006. SPS (Single Payment Scheme): 266,781 EUR

2006. Aid for energy crops: 1,053 EUR

2005. Area aid for producers of cereals, oilseeds, proteins, grass sileage and set aside: 254,699 EUR

2004. Aids for producers of cereals: 168,223 EUR

2004. Set-aside: 66,370 EUR

2004. Agri-environment-Farmer system (2000-2006): 39,030 EUR

2004. Aids for producers of peas, field beans & sweet lupins: 31,836 EUR

2004. Aids for producers of soya beans, rape seed & sunflower seed: 16,821 EUR

2004. Aids for producers of non-textile flax seed and hemp grown for fibre: 7,398 EUR

2004. Forestry – New system (2000-2006): 303 EUR

2004. Forestry – Former system (2000-2006): 294 EUR

2004. Other expenditure related to direct payments for arable crops: -30,722 EUR

In total, this amounts to 4,538,719 EUR (£3,549,122.60 GBP).

However, we also found something else on the Farm Subsidy website (which again, bizarrely, we cannot seem to find today). Another recipient was also listed whose address was given as Stody Estate Office, Melton Constable, NR24 2ER: a company by the name of GC & FC Knight Ltd. According to this website, GC & FC Knight Ltd was the former name of Stody Estate Ltd – it was changed to Stody Estate Ltd on 17th December 2002.

So how come, on the Farm subsidy website, GC & FC Knight Ltd are listed as having received 1,264,590 EUR (£991,049,56 GBP) between 2000-2004, if the company changed it’s name to Stody Estate Ltd in 2002?

All very strange. Unless of course the subsidies are paid two years in arrears? If anyone can enlighten us, please do!

Either way, it’s clear from these records that the people farming on Stody Estate have received millions in agricultural subsidies. In light of their gamekeeper’s conviction for mass poisoning using banned pesticides, it would be very interesting to find out if the Rural Payments Agency will be considering a substantial fine for breach of the subsidies regulations. Surely they have to show that wildlife crime doesn’t pay? You can ask them here: csc@rpa.gsi.gov.uk

UPDATE: 10 October 2014 – the Rural Payments agency responds here

Another peregrine poisoned in Derry

Last week we blogged about the suspected poisoning of a famous peregrine that had been found dead in the grounds of St Columb’s Cathedral in Derry (see here).

Seven days on and we’ve been told by one of our contributors (thank you) of another dead peregrine in Derry, this time confirmed to have been poisoned.

The dead bird was discovered at the Carmean Road in Moneymore on the afternoon of Tuesday July 15th. The carcass was taken to a vet at the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development for a post mortem. Tests revealed it had been killed by ingesting the banned poison Carbofuran.

Police in Magherafelt have launched an appeal for information about this incident and about any suspicious activity around the local quarries. Anyone with information is asked to contact Magherafelt Police Station on Tel: 101.

This is the 19th peregrine known to have been targeted in these isles this year. And these are only the ones that have been reported. Details of the first 17 can be found here, details of the 18th here.

Peregrine photo by Steve Waterhouse