Month: January 2017

The term ‘nasty brigade’ was coined by Chris Packham in an opinion piece he wrote for BBC Wildlife Magazine in October 2015. He was referring to certain organisations within the shooting industry, which led to two of those organisations (Countryside Alliance & GWCT) making a formal complaint to the BBC – a complaint the BBC later rejected (see here).

Packham was spot on. The Nasty Brigade was, and continues to be, an entirely appropriate term. Evidence of this continuing nastiness has emerged in the last couple of weeks…

In November 2016, Dr Pat Thompson, senior upland policy officer at the RSPB, gave a presentation at the Northern England Raptor Forum’s annual conference. The title of his presentation was, ‘Driven grouse shooting: born in the 19th Century, fit for the 21st? – The impact of management practices and the need for change‘.

Pat is a highly-regarded researcher within scientific and conservation circles. He is widely-published on the topic of upland management and if you’re lucky enough to get to hear one of his talks, you’ll find it to be balanced, measured, and fully supported by evidence. His talk at the NERF conference was no exception and was based on one of his recent scientific publications on grouse moor management (you can read that paper here).

During Pat’s 45-minute talk, he took the audience through the environmental benefits and pitfalls of current grouse moor management, and he also talked for a couple of minutes about the politics of grouse moor management, using this slide to illustrate his words (apologies for the poor resolution – this photo was taken in a dimly lit room):

Now, it turns out that someone at this conference was videoing Pat’s talk and that video footage somehow found its way to the Nasty Brigade, who, in turn, a couple of weeks ago published a very short clip of Pat’s talk (just the part when he was discussing the political side of driven grouse shooting) in an attempt to embarrass both Pat and his employer, the RSPB.

The video clip has since been taken down but the associated blogs written by Tim Bonner of the Countryside Alliance (see here) and Andrew Gilruth of the GWCT (see here) both remain in the public domain, although both have been slightly edited since their initial publication. [NB: Andrew Gilruth’s blog has now been substantially edited, so much so it’s barely recognisable from the original]. And then last week the Shooting Times joined in on the attack and published a re-hash of the CA and GWCT blogs, despite knowing that Pat was on sick leave and unable to respond (see here). Nasty tactics indeed.

But if you take the time to think about the statements that Pat made, you’ll find that, unsurprisingly, every single one of them is based on fact. Not the ‘alternative facts‘ so favoured by the Nasty Brigade, but actual, real, demonstrable facts. For example:

Personal attacks on opponents of driven grouse shooting: These are well documented – Chris Packham and Mark Avery have been subjected to a near-constant barrage of personal abuse on social media (and from establishment figures in the Westminster Parliament) for at least two years, as has one of the authors of this blog (see here) and the Bowland Brewery was even the victim of a targeted hate campaign just for supporting the RSPB’s Hen Harrier conservation project (see here).

Attempts to distort and discredit science on burning (GWCT, YFTB): Both the GWCT and You Forgot the Birds attempted to discredit an RSPB-led scientific paper on heather burning by quoting another paper that suggested the RSPB had ‘twisted’ the facts. The problem was, the other paper hadn’t yet been accepted for publication at the time GWCT and YFTB were quoting from it – it was still at the stage of being a ‘submitted manuscript’ and hadn’t even cleared the process of scientific peer-review. You might expect this sort of behaviour from YFTB but for the GWCT (a supposedly science-based charity) to engage in this abuse of scientific process was disgraceful. Mark Avery blogged about it at the time (here, here, here).

Abuse of good name of BTO: Ian Botham (of YFTB) made claims in a Daily Mail article published in August 2016 that the BTO had undertaken a bird survey on a Pennines grouse moor that showed it was “bird heaven”. The same fairy tale was picked up by Matt Ridley in The Spectator. Presumably, the use of the BTO’s scientific credentials were supposed to add gravitas and authenticity to these findings. Unfortunately for Botham and Ridley, the BTO had nothing to do with that survey and they quickly distanced themselves from the survey results (see here).

Lamentable debate in Westminster: An entirely appropriate description of proceedings. It wasn’t a debate because only one side turned up in any number, leading to a procession of vested-interest politicians standing up and telling lies.

Phoney claims – restoration, burning, birds of prey, waders etc: There are so many examples of phoney claims made by the Nasty Brigade that it’s hard to pick one. The ones that spring to mind most readily are the most recent ones made by the likes of the Gift of Grouse, the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, Scottish Countryside Alliance etc about the status of raptors on driven grouse moors and the probable cause of ‘disappearing’ sat-tagged raptors (e.g. see here, here).

Organised attempt to keep raptor workers off some estates: This is happening on certain estates in North Yorkshire where gamekeepers have been licensed to monitor Schedule 1 raptors (yes, really) which will prevent genuine raptor workers from visiting those nest sites for monitoring purposes and thus lessen the chance of illegal activity being seen and/or reported.

So as you can see, Pat’s comments are all supportable with evidence. Naturally, the CA, GWCT and Shooting Times articles all try to suggest that Pat has been ‘caught out’ not toe-ing the RSPB party line but in our view, the Nasty Brigade has scored a bit of an own goal with this latest display of nastiness.

Far from embarrassing Pat and the RSPB, what this actually does is show that the RSPB can, and does, speak out. All too often the RSPB is accused of fence-sitting, especially on the issue of driven grouse shooting, and in a lot of cases that criticism has been well founded. So let’s celebrate Pat’s comments, applaud him for making them in a public setting, and thank the Nasty Brigade for bringing them to everyone’s attention.

Earlier this month we revealed that public funds were being used to promote the business of a sporting agent who had been convicted of raptor persecution (through being vicariously liable for the crimes of his gamekeeper). We encouraged blog readers to ask Tourism Minister Fiona Hyslop whether this was an appropriate use of tax payers’ money (see here).

One of the Minister’s aides has responded today as follows:

The problem with this response is that it doesn’t answer the question that was asked. That question to the Minister was:

“Were you aware that the Scottish Country Sports Tourism Group [in receipt of public funding from VisitScotland] is promoting a convicted wildlife criminal, and if so, do you think this is an appropriate use of public funds?”

And a few days after that question was posed to the Minister, we discovered that the Scottish Country Sports Tourism Group is also promoting the businesses of Invercauld Estate and Glendye Grouse Moor, where illegally-set traps have recently been found (see here).

So, we’ll be writing again to the Tourism Minister and asking her to please answer the question:

‘Are you aware that the Scottish Country Sports Tourism Group, in receipt of public funding from VisitScotland, is promoting the business of a convicted wildlife criminal and that of two estates where illegal activity has been uncovered, and if so, do you think this is an appropriate use of public funds?‘

We’re also aware that one of our blog readers has contacted his local MSP about this issue (thank you) and his MSP has now written to the Chief Exec of VisitScotland, Malcolm Roughead, to ask for an explanation.

This issue isn’t going away any time soon.

We’ve been blogging about the proposed increase of investigatory powers for the SSPCA for six years (since Feb 2011). During this time, five, yes, five Environment ministers have been and gone (Roseanna Cunningham, Stewart Stevenson, Paul Wheelhouse, Aileen McLeod, Roseanna Cunningham [again, but this time as Cabinet Secretary]).

Here’s how the Scottish Government has handled this so far:

February 2011: Increased powers for the SSPCA was first suggested by former MSP Peter Peacock as an amendment during the WANE Bill debates. The then Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham rejected it as an amendment but suggested a public consultation was in order.

September 2011: Seven months later Elaine Murray MSP (Scottish Labour) lodged a parliamentary motion that further powers for the SSPCA should be considered.

November 2011: Elaine Murray MSP (Scottish Labour) formalised the question in a P&Q session and the next Environment Minister, Stewart Stevenson MSP, then promised that the consultation would happen ‘in the first half of 2012’.

September 2012: Nine months later and nothing had happened so we asked Paul Wheelhouse MSP, as the new Environment Minister, when the consultation would take place. The response, in October 2012, was:

“The consultation has been delayed by resource pressures but will be brought forward in the near future”.

July 2013: Ten months later and still no sign so we asked the Environment Minister (still Paul Wheelhouse) again. In August 2013, this was the response:

“We regret that resource pressures did further delay the public consultation on the extension of SSPCA powers. However, I can confirm that the consultation document will be published later this year”.

September 2013: At a meeting of the PAW Executive Group, Minister Wheelhouse said this:

“The consultation on new powers for the SSPCA will be published in October 2013“.

January 2014: In response to one of our blog readers who wrote to the Minister (still Paul Wheelhouse) to ask why the consultation had not yet been published:

“We very much regret that resource pressures have caused further delays to the consultation to gain views on the extension of SSPCA powers. It will be published in the near future“.

31 March 2014: Public consultation launched.

1 September 2014: Consultation closed.

26 October 2014: We published our analysis of the consultation responses here.

22 January 2015: Analysis of consultation responses published by Scottish Government. 233 responses (although 7,256 responses if online petition included – see here).

We were told a decision would come from the new Environment Minister, Dr Aileen McLeod MSP, “in due course”.

1 September 2015: One year after the consultation closed and still nothing.

25 February 2016: In response to a question posed by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change & Environment Committee, Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod said: “I have some further matters to clarify with the SSPCA, however I do hope to be able to report on the Scottish Government’s position on this issue shortly“.

May 2016: Dr Aileen McLeod fails to get re-elected and loses her position as Environment Minister. Roseanna Cunningham is promoted to a newly-created position of Cabinet Secretary for the Environment.

12 May 2016: Mark Ruskell MSP (Scottish Greens) submits the following Parliamentary question:

Question S5W-00030 – To ask the Scottish Government when it will announce its decision regarding extending the powers of the Scottish SPCA to tackle wildlife crime.

26 May 2016: Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham responds with this:

A decision on whether to extend the investigatory powers of the Scottish SPCA will be announced in due course.

1 September 2016: Two years after the consultation closed and still nothing.

9 January 2017: Mark Ruskell MSP (Scottish Greens) submits the following Parliamentary question:

Question S5W-05982 – To ask the Scottish Government by what date it will publish its response to the consultation on the extension of wildlife crime investigative powers for inspectors in the Scottish SPCA.

17 January 2017: Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham responds:

A decision on whether to extend the investigatory powers of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals will be announced in the first half of 2017.

Given the Government’s appalling track record on dealing with this issue, the Cabinet Secretary will forgive us for thinking this is just yet another holding statement designed to deter further questions, although we’d be delighted if she proved us wrong.

The blame for this fiasco can’t all be placed at her feet – her predecessors have played a blinder at kicking this issue in to the long grass, ably assisted by landowners, gamekeepers and Police Scotland, all of whom are against increased SSPCA powers. So now the Cab Sec has the job of wading through the overgrowth to fetch the ball and bring it back in to play. No more extra time, this decision needs to be made and whatever that decision is, we’ll understand a great deal about how serious this Government is about tackling illegal raptor persecution.

Well done and thanks (again) to Mark Ruskell MSP (Scottish Greens) for holding the Government to account.

The campaign group Birders Against Wildlife Crime has launched a crowdfunding appeal to help support a new project to fit satellite tags to raptors in northern England, set to begin later this year.

Satellite tagging has revolutionised efforts to detect raptor persecution crimes, and has also helped draw public attention to the illegal killing of raptors. The power of satellite-tagging was really first realised in 2009 when a young satellite-tagged golden eagle, ‘Alma’, was found dead on a grouse moor on the Millden Estate in the Angus Glens. She’d been poisoned. It’s highly unlikely her corpse would have been detected had she not been fitted with a satellite tag, which allowed investigators to pinpoint her body as she lay face down in a vast expanse of heather moorland. The resulting publicity about her death was phenomenal, and even though nobody was ever prosecuted, this crime turned the spotlight on to an industry that had escaped scrutiny for so long.

Since Alma, there have been many other illegally-killed raptors, including golden eagles, white-tailed eagles, hen harriers, Montagu’s harriers and red kites whose satellite tags have given the game away. These days, the raptor killers are wise to the game and now it’s far more common for a sat-tagged bird to simply ‘disappear’, with all the evidence (carcass, sat tag) simply destroyed to avoid detection, although occasionally there won’t be a ‘clean kill’ and the wounded bird is able to move some distance before succumbing to its injuries and investigators are able to collect the corpse, conduct a post mortem and record it as a confirmed persecution crime.

Some within the grouse-shooting industry have recently been trying to discredit the use of raptor satellite tags, and it’s not hard to see why. They’ve slurred the professional reputations of highly experienced and licensed raptor researchers and have used some photographs of a young golden eagle with what appears to have a ‘slipped’ tag harness as evidence that the tagging experts don’t know what they’re doing. Now, of course, it’s possible for a sat tag harness to slip, and it does happen on occasion, but it’s a rare occurrence. What the accusers don’t mention is the circumstantial evidence that suggests tagged raptors are being caught inside crow cage traps, providing an opportunity for the trap operator to cut one of the harness straps before releasing the bird, with its tag now dangling and looking like it has been badly fitted. There is also evidence of at least one tagged hen harrier being trapped, its harness removed and transferred to a free-ranging corvid, presumably with the intention of disguising the fact the hen harrier was illegally killed.

Strangely, the grouse shooting industry has not tried to vilify the satellite tagging of non-raptor species, such as woodcock (GWCT project) or cuckoos (BTO project); it’s only the tagging of raptors they seem to object to. Can’t think why.

Here’s a photo (taken by Stephen Murphy) of Bowland Betty, a sat-tagged hen harrier found dead on a grouse moor on the Swinton Estate in Yorkshire in 2012. A post mortem revealed she had been shot.

The new raptor satellite-tagging project in northern England is being undertaken by highly experienced and licensed experts in an independent research consortium (all voluntary – no salaries are being paid). The beauty of this independence is that sat tag data will be put in to the public domain very, very quickly. No more waiting for weeks/months/years to find out what happened, which will allow timely and targeted publicity every time one of these raptors ‘disappears’ or is found shot/trapped/poisoned. Greater public awareness of raptor persecution is key to bringing it to an end.

The crowdfunding target is to reach £10,000 by mid-March. It’s ambitious but it’s do-able. If you’d like to make a donation, however small or large, please visit BAWC’s crowdfunding page HERE

Thank you