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

Police investigate death of six buzzards in Aberdeenshire

Breaking news….

Police are investigating the death of six buzzards found in a field near Fordoun, Aberdeenshire, yesterday afternoon.

No other details available.

We’ll have to await the cause of death but this does look v suspicious.

News article here

UPDATE: 9 October 2014: It turns out the police can’t tell the difference between raptors & chickens. Seriously, we’re not making this up – see here.

More on gamekeeper Allen Lambert, convicted mass poisoner at Stody Estate

Following the conviction yesterday of Stody Estate’s former gamekeeper, Allen Lambert (see here), more details are emerging about this case.

Lambert had pleaded guilty to five other charges at an earlier hearing (three offences of illegal storage and use of pesticides and unlawful possession of nine buzzards –  see here). However, he had denied charges relating to the illegal killing of 11 raptors (10 buzzards & 1 sparrowhawk) and possession of pesticides and other items capable of being used to prepare poisoned baits. It was these denials that triggered yesterday’s trial at Norwich Magistrates Court.

Investigators had found a sack of nine poisoned buzzards on a quad bike, the banned pesticide Mevinphos in Lambert’s Land Rover, and another banned pesticide, Aldicarb, in his garage. One of the containers was a bucket with a syringe and a number of needles – the classic ‘poisoner’s kit’ used to inject poison into baits. More dead birds (including a tawny owl and five buzzards) were also found on the estate close to pheasant feeding bins but were too decomposed for analysis.

The prosecution argued that Lambert had poisoned the birds on the estate and the reason they were in a sack on a quad bike in an outbuilding at his house was because he was in the process of removing the evidence. Lambert claimed he hadn’t poisoned the birds at all – he said they’d been dumped on the estate by a dog-walker with a vendetta against him (yes, that old chestnut). He said the ‘poisoner’s kit’ had been left in his garage by a now-deceased friend (yes, another old chestnut). Lambert claimed he’d only once used the poison found in his vehicle, and that was seven years ago to kill a “tricky fox”.

Fortunately, District Judge Peter Veits said he found Lambert a non-credible witness. He said: “In short, I find his explanation of a vendetta against him implausible“. He went on to say that the only other explanation was that Lambert had indeed poisoned the birds and all the evidence pointed to that.

He adjourned sentencing until 6th November so background reports could be prepared. However, don’t hold your breath for a custodial sentence……the judge told Lambert that although the offences crossed the custody threshold, this would not necessarily mean he would be jailed  as he would take in to account “the total lack of supervision” and training he’d received from his employer.  Judge Veits said: “There would appear to be a complete lack of control over poisons on the estate” and “In many other ways your employers might have been in the dock themselves for some of these offences involving poison on their property“.

This “total lack of supervision” is an interesting suggestion. Several years ago (2008), the Field Sports Magazine published an article on Stody Estate in their ‘shoot review‘ section. Interestingly, since proceedings began against Lambert, this particular review has ‘disappeared’ from the Field Sports Magazine’s website. Luckily, we had already saved a copy and we reproduce it here. It provides a telling insight in to the relationship Lambert had with his employer, and the level of involvement that Lambert’s employer had with the game-shooting on the estate:

Fieldsports Magazine Shoot Review

Stody Estate, Norfolk

A few years ago, Mike Barnes was invited to shoot in North Norfolk. The shoot was new to him and as such the day carried the added element of surprise. And what surprise it turned out to be!

In January last year I was invited to shoot in North Norfolk. The shoot was new to me and as such the day carried the added element of surprise. And what surprise! While I have never paid any attention to those who dismiss Norfolk as boringly flat – they clearly don’t know the county – I was in awe on the third drive of the morning. Admittedly it was a breezy January day, but the pheasants which flew from Arabella’s were little short of spectacular. The Guns were lined out across a dip in front of the tiny village of Stody. A wood to one side, and another wood in front.

The first couple of cock pheasants to appear made an impressive entrance. More followed in equally majestic style. I was the end Gun on the right, and had four or five shots – all good sporting birds. But looking down the line towards the centre pegs at the base of the dip, the Guns were faced with the finest classically presented high pheasants you could ever wish to see. And yes, this was Norfolk. The Stody estate to be precise, home of the MacNicol family.

Ian MacNicol died suddenly two years ago at the age of 62. A legendary figure in farming and country circles, he left many legacies not least the impact he had not only on Stody but in many aspects of rural life in Britain. He enjoyed 25 years of active involvement with the CLA, and was president from 1997 to 1999 during which time he made light of the task of enlightening the New Labour government. He pioneered access. He led by example in so many areas and Stody gave him the platform to do it.

He inherited the estate from his stepfather when he was just 19 while at Cirencester and following a couple of years’ qualifying as a chartered surveyor with John D. Wood in London, he took over the running of the estate in 1963. In 1974 he married Adel. They made a great couple, and it was Adel who was hosting on the day of my visit.

Situated near Melton Constable, Stody comprises 4,000 acres of the Glaven Valley, a small chalk stream that cuts through the Cromer-Holt ridge, surely one of the prettiest and least spoilt areas of rural England. A glacial freak of nature, of wooded hills and arable land, small villages, delightful churches and wild brown trout.

It is tailor made for shooting, but the nature of the sport has changed considerably over the years. Adel explained: “There are 700 acres of mixed woodland. Sadly a lot of the hardwoods were cut down during the war and softwoods were planted for their quick growth. However since the late 1960s, as part of a woodland management scheme, we have planted a lot of mixed woodland with a high ratio of broadleaf trees.

“When Ian took over from the syndicate which previously shot here, he let the two outside beats and kept the central part for the family. Much of the shooting was in woodland rides, using undulations and contours to best effect.”

“The arrival of new gamekeeper Allan Lambert in 1990 prompted a rethink. “Both Ian and Allan concluded that they would help the wild population and release cocks only. Ian could see longer term that the writing was on the wall – there would be pressure on the rearing of game.” Certain areas were shot lightly. The grey partridge population had also collapsed after the good times of the Seventies, just like everywhere else.

Son Charlie, 27, who works in London in corporate finance, is now shoot captain and picks up the story: “Dad persevered with not rearing partridges, which after the first two or three years must have been a bit of a test, and then he had the pressure of two boys who were mustard keen – brother George and myself – so in 2002 we started to rear and release some French partridges. It has undoubtedly been a great success. We present them in very much the traditional Norfolk way, with Guns pegged out 15-20 yards back from a tall hedgerow (preferably a double hedgerow), and the game cover sited 50 yards back the other side. The picker-ups are a long way back, so that we can shoot behind. Allan and his team drive them superbly, and two of the drives in particular, Pynkney and The Wongs, give spectacular shooting all along the line.”

On the subject of hedgerows, Stody has 90 kilometres of them and 100 kilometres of grass margins. Ian was one of the first to sign up ten years ago for entry level stewardship and the estate has recently entered into the higher level scheme.

They have taken part in the GWCT partridge count scheme for several years. Charlie adds: “As of three years ago we now put down around 100 English partridges each year. They are reared under bantams from day-olds, and we put them out in batches of 20-30 in areas well away from the redlegs. “We always see some on shoot days, but we don’t shoot them – other than by mistake. But if this does happen it is not a hanging offence! Very few get shot and we feel that by doing this we can only help build a stock.”

As for pheasants, Charlie explains that they have tried them all, or nearly! “Michigan, Traditional, Scandinavian, Chinese, and for the last two years Bizantes – the Bizantes fly very well, and are reasonable to hold. We used to buy them in as day-olds but as this takes Allan away from vermin control (one of his key strengths) at an important time, we now go for poults.” Most covers are a mixture of maize, with surrounding wild bird strips. The aim is to provide both food and cover. And they always leave stubbles, with mustard, for the partridges.

Adel adds: “Ian was always a keen shooting man, but most of all he saw shooting fitting in as integral to conservation and wildlife. He was passionate about the rural way of life and all it entailed.”

He planted and named woods after each of their four children – Arabella’s was the wood to which I referred earlier, while there are further woods for Charlie, George and Katie. “I will look to continue to run the shoot in the same way as my father” said Charlie. “It is a family shoot in which we have ten main days, a keeper’s day and an estate day. We have a tremendously loyal team of beaters and pickers-up, many of whom have been with us for years, and all are an integral part of both the day and the wider shoot.” The shot game goes to the local butcher.

“As for the sport, we will always look to present the best birds possible, favouring bags of around 200. We don’t start with the partridges until late October, then one more partridge day before pheasants in mid-November. And we try to introduce at least one new drive every year. This year we have trebled the size of a wood planted in 1996 when my father was High Sheriff of Norfolk. We call it Sheriff’s Wood.” A passion for shooting runs in the family. The two brothers are very keen, and both had a traditional introduction. “I carried an empty .410 for a full season” explained Charlie. “I had shot woodpigeons and flighted duck but then at the age of 14 before a shooting day I stood in front of the whole party at breakfast and by heart recited Mark Beaufoy’s If A Sportsman True You’d Be. Then went into the field and stood in front of my father. Never to be forgotten. Friends were subsequently incredibly kind with invitations.”

Adel enjoys the shoot days with her labrador, Lochie, but doesn’t carry a gun. “I stalk in Scotland, but I had three brothers who were also keen on shooting.” Her grandfather was Richmond Watson, founder of West London Shooting School. All in all a rich sporting pedigree which sons Charlie and George have fully embraced and look set to enjoy many happy seasons in the years to come at Stody.

Ian MacNicol and the CLA

Ian MacNicol was the CLA’s representative at the CLA Game Fair and contributed much towards the success it has become. He was CLA President from 1997-1999, and deputy president during the preceding two years. He saw what an important role the fair could play in bringing the countryside and rural businesses to the attention of the decision makers. He also helped advise the government on the removal of lots of red tape and was also a spokesman on foot and mouth.

One of the things he promoted amongst estate owners was a greater degree of access. Adel explains: “He was very keen on voluntary access, something which he pioneered here at Stody, with 13 miles of permissive paths and two designated areas of three acres where dogs can be walked off the lead. The response was good and others followed suit.” In fact with the right to roam debate he secured many practical concessions.

He was awarded OBE for services to agriculture in 2001. “Ian was always fairly forward thinking, and very conscious of a need to farm with a conservation bent. But never forgetting that farming was a business – we have never farmed around the shooting. We have an excellent farm manager in Ross Haddow who as a shooting man understands both sides. Whilst we do all we can to help game, without farming we wouldn’t have a shoot.” Following his presidency of the CLA he was chairman of the Royal Agricultural Society, where he began the revitalisation of the Royal Show and National Agriculture Centre at Stoneleigh. He had a long established interest in west country livestock markets and pioneered electrical marketing to minimise animal movements. He was a former Game Conservancy trustee and founding chairman of the Norfolk branch, a founder chairman of North Norfolk Radio and director of East Port Great Yarmouth. A great supporter of the National Garden Scheme, he was also involved in any number of local charities and organisations.

He somehow managed to fit it all in and also be great fun and find precious time for his family – a one-off, just like Stody itself.

The keeper

Gamekeeper Allan Lambert (59) joined Stody from nearby Foxley in 1990, and quickly developed a good understanding with his new boss. They made the decision to release cocks only in that first year. “It was a slow start as there was so much vermin. We shot 12,000 rabbits which must have accounted for 300 acres of unharvestable crop. We also took 75 foxes in the first three months, and we still account for 130-180 per year. There is a lot of unkeepered ground in the area.

Consequently there were only three days pheasant shooting in that first year. But they persevered. “People try releasing cocks only but it takes time. They get despondent with early results and pack up after three or four years, but it can take seven or eight years before you start to see results.

“Now we are seeing a lot of hens, which are of course all wild. In a really good season we will get a return of 80%, but generally we look for 70%.” Wild stock is therefore very significant on shoot days. They are also good fliers. Many of the young wild are now of Michigan Blue strain, from previous generations of cocks released four or five years ago.

“We are now releasing Bizantes, which we have been very happy with. They are big birds, so the butcher likes them – but they also fly well.” He told me that there are higher drives than Arabella’s, particularly when the wind isn’t so strong. “With the small valleys a very strong wind has a detrimental effect – anything over 15mph is too much.”

They are trying to boost grey partridge stocks and are enjoying some success. “Obviously it depends on the weather, and modern farming is challenging them, but we have a nice sprinkling of greys. We rear 100 under bantams and release them in coveys. I would think that in a normal year we will see 150-200 young English.”

His wife Jackie cooks the shoot meals, while he relies on a regular team of helpers on shoot days. “I have a really good team of beaters, some of them have been with me for nearly 30 years. John Kingsley, a retired estate employee takes charge of the beaters wagon while Simon Rouse drives the Guns’ vintage lorry.

Allan is a man dedicated to his job, having never taken a day off with illness in 30 years. Stody is at his heart and he clearly enjoys working here. “They are a very good family to work for” he adds, and you know he means it.

His passion is wild game. With foxes, crows, magpies, rooks and squirrels, he is kept busy. “But there are many people who don’t realise that unless we controlled vermin, never mind pheasants, there would be no other wildlife to speak of.”

END

It should be noted that Ian MacNicol, a former CLA President and a former GWCT Trustee, died in 2006 and Stody Estate is now in the hands of his family. The Farm Manager, Ross Haddow, has been at Stody since 1992 (two years after Lambert was hired) and has won awards for his work (see here). Frighteningly, ‘around 900 primary school youngsters visit the farm each year to see a variety of farm enterprises’.

It’s also interesting to note that Lambert was not suspended or sacked after his arrest – it’s been reported that he actually retired ‘some months after his arrest’. Fascinating.

The National Gamekeepers’ Organisation has published a statement about Lambert’s conviction, stating that he isn’t, and never was, a member of their outfit. They also claim that Lambert is one of the “very, very few” gamekeepers who break the law. Hmm, according to our reckoning, Lambert is actually the 27th gamekeeper to be convicted of wildlife crime offences in the last 3.5 years (see here) – that seems more than a “very, very few” and remember these are only the ones who’ve been caught! According to the RSPB, since 1990, over 100 gamekeepers have been convicted for crimes against birds of prey.

Full credit to the RSPB Investigations Team, Norfolk Constabulary, Natural England and the Crown Prosecution Service in this case. It’s exceptionally rare that a conviction is gained for actually poisoning raptors – usually it’s just a conviction for possession or storage of a banned pesticide. Now we have to wait to see whether their hard work results in a meaningful sentence…..

Here are some media reports about Lambert’s conviction:

RSPB news here

BBC news here

Guardian here

Dereham Times here

National Gamekeepers’ Organisation here

Telegraph here

Mark Avery’s blog here

Blog by RSPB Investigator Guy Shorrock here

UPDATE 6/11/14: Lambert’s sentencing here

Stody Estate gamekeeper convicted of poisoning 10 buzzards & a sparrowhawk

allen-lambert-stody-estateBreaking news from @RSPBBirders….

(Former) Stody Estate gamekeeper, Allen Lambert, has today been found guilty of poisoning 10 buzzards and a sparrowhawk, and of having a poisoner’s kit.

Sentencing due in November.

Well done indeed to the RSPB Investigations Team, Norfolk Constabulary and the CPS.

RSPB press release, including link to a video of the crime scene and details of other charges to which Lambert had pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing, here.

We’ll be blogging some more about this case shortly…[UPDATE: see here]

Meanwhile, here’s a question. Was/is convicted mass poisoner Allen Lambert a member of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation? Let’s ask them. Emails to: info@nationalgamekeepers.org.uk

Here are nine of the buzzards he poisoned:

Lambert 9 bz

One Million blog views

This little blog has now received over one million views.

Massive thanks to all those who’ve read, contributed, commented, shared and supported it. This milestone would have been impossible without you.

Hope you’ll stay with us as our combined voices get louder and louder….

Here are the top ten most-read blog posts:

1. Natural England issues licence to destroy buzzard eggs and nests to protect pheasants (here).

2. Buzzard ‘management’ trial gets govt approval and £375K funding (here).

3. The life, and death, of golden eagle Fearnan (here).

4. Council leader calls for ‘open season’ on hen harriers (here).

5. Ross-shire Massacre: death toll rises to 19 – public protest this Saturday (here).

6. Poisoned peregrine found near Leadhills boundary: police response appalling (here).

7. East Scotland sea eagle chick ‘disappears’ on grouse moor (here).

8. First Irish-bred sea eagle shot and killed (here).

9. Significant haul of poisoned baits found on Leadhills Estate (here).

10. Death toll rises again in Ross-shire Massacre as £5K reward offered (here).

Case against Stody Estate gamekeeper Allen Lambert: part 6

The trial of (now former) Stody Estate gamekeeper, Allen Charles Lambert, 65, is due to take place today at Norwich Magistrates Court.

Lambert is facing a series of charges for offences alleged to have taken place 18 months ago in April 2013.

Background to this case here.

UPDATE 18.15HRS: CONVICTED! Details here.