Since our last blogs revealing the identity of the false flag Strathbraan Community Collaboration for Waders (predominantly it’s the grouse shooting industry with a few sheep farmers thrown in for good measure – see here, here) who have been given a licence to cull ravens by SNH on the pretence that it will help waders, quite a lot has happened.
On Wednesday, the BBC ran an article on its website (here), on BBC Radio Scotland (Good Morning Scotland, here) and on TV (BBC Reporting Scotland). Once again, the incompetent BBC used footage of rooks to illustrate the story, as it has previously (see here).
[Screengrab from Reporting Scotland, 2 May 2018]
In this piece we heard from Nick Halfhide, Head of Sustainable Development at SNH who failed miserably to address the many questions that have been asked about the scientific justification for this cull and the flawed process used by SNH when considering the licence application.
Mr Halfhide’s weak logic was exposed when he compared the RSPB’s use of the General Licence (to kill corvids) with the raven-specific cull licence, which has been issued without supportive scientific evidence but rather on the basis of ‘let’s see what happens when we kill a load of ravens’, based on old wives’ tales straight from the mouths of gamekeepers with a long-documented hatred of ravens. The two licences are totally incomparable, as Mr Halfhide well knows.
Then yesterday (Thursday), we all received a generic email from Mike Cantlay (SNH Chair) in response to the questions that have been raised about this licence over the last two weeks.
The content of Mr Cantlay’s email was tragically inept. Mark Avery has shredded it with ease on his blog this morning (see here), which saves us the job, but the bottom line is that, once again, SNH has failed to address any of the questions and concerns raised about this licence and the process used to approve it.
And then today (Friday), The Times ran an article about an alleged death threat received by Mike Cantlay in relation to the raven cull. Astonishingly, The Times has attempted to link the alleged death threat to the email Chris Packham sent to Mr Cantlay last week in which he criticised SNH’s decision to approve the raven cull licence:
Since when is Chris Packham (or anyone else) responsible for alleged death threats by those stupid enough to make them?
Did Chris’s email begin, ‘Good morning Mr Cantlay, I wish you were dead, and I hope someone kills you for presiding over the raven cull’?
Of course it didn’t. It began, ‘Good morning Mr Cantlay, I hope you are well’.
Chris has responded to The Times article as follows:
Nice try at deflection, SNH, but it doesn’t wash. The simple fact remains that two weeks after the news broke, SNH has failed to answer a single question or concern raised about the raven cull licence, and even though a somewhat devious attempt has been made to suggest there is a ‘rethink’ going on at SNH (there isn’t, see here and here), the fact also remains that this licence is still currently active and ravens are being killed for no other reason than to ‘see what happens’.
Public anger continues, and will no doubt have been fuelled by SNH’s unacceptable refusal to address the legitimate questions that have been raised.
It’s also clear that SNH intends to try and ride out the storm and it has not suspended the licence pending the findings of its Scientific Advisory Committee’s review of the licence (we don’t know when that group will report).
So what is the next step?
As SNH has refused to engage, the next step is to ask the Scottish Government to suspend the raven cull licence with immediate effect, pending the findings of the licence review.
Please send (polite) emails to Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham and ask her to use her Ministerial position to intervene in this embarrassing fiasco. She will be well aware of the unfolding situation and, given her legal background, will be fully aware that should this farce result in a judicial review (which is quite likely, the way things are going), SNH and the Government will not have a leg to stand on given the complete lack of consultation with all stakeholders during the licence application process. Emails to: cabsececclr@gov.scot
Raptor Persecution UK 
Excellent factual spot on article.
I will send the email and share this. Thank you XX
I too received the completely bland and inadequate response from Mr Cantlay in which not one of my very reasonable questions was answered.
I’ve sent a further message to him asking, under Freedom of Information, for the data SNH has on avian species in the Strath Braan cull area (and over what period of time the data were collected) which was used to arrive at the decision to award the licence. I have also asked him to provide the names (and qualifications) of those who collected the data. I suspect there is no data… only the word of ‘those who live and work’ in the area… erm, gamekeepers. Hmm…
I do hope the idiot who made death threats is tracked down and exposed. But we shouldn’t rule out the possibility of an agent provocateur.
…or no one at all!
Excellent idea to make a formal FOI Act request, as a public body they have to respond or provide a justification why they can’t provide the information. I got the same email reply from SNH as everyone else and regret not making a clear reference to FOI in my original email. I wonder if someone with more expertise than me (almost anyone) has already made a more detailed request as I think the more detailed and focused the request the better? Not sure, can anyone else suggest the best approach?
A FIO has been submitted by Adrian Taylor on the 21 April.
If you google – snh foi Perth raven cull – you should go through to the “What do they know website”. You can then see that snh say they will deliver on the 22May. At the bottom of the page click on “follow” and then register. When they publish, snh should send you a link to see everything.
You do not have to go into details, they should deliver everything they have.
The more people do this the better.
Thanks, that’s really helpful, I’ll do as you suggest.
Kempfor, When you have registered, on the right hand side of the page, you will see that there is a list of requests. You can “Follow” all of them.
I too made a FOI formal request but only got the whitewash reply.
Doug
Sadly by the 22 May, the gamekeepers will ensure they reach their quota, at least???
Doug
Have you gone through the process, I outline above or did you email SNH direct? The second is not a formal request.
It shouldn’t have to be. FOI requests can be as simple as an email, and don’t even have to reference the Act.
That right bshistorian. All it needs is an email stating that your are submitting an FOI SAR on a given subject.
However, the other way lets you see what others are asking.
This is an excellent idea. There may be other FOI requests that we could make of them.
I have sent my polite letter to Ms Cummingham.
I find it pathetic that the death threats against Mr Canley should have been made and equally that there are those willing to try and blame Chris Packham. There will always by unbalanced and zealous individuals who will use any excuse to get attention, and the person/s who have made the threats would qualify. It is a sad commentary on our society that the original action was proposed and that it has apparently nearly spiralled out of control. Time must be taken for the situation to cool down and an intervention by Ms Cummingham would allow for this to happen.
I’ve sent my email to Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham:
The recent decision of the Scottish Natural Heritage to issue a licence to kill 300 ravens over 5 years, is without study to support it.
In fact there are papers that disprove the need for such a radical approach. Although the cull is laid in the pretext of protecting waders that are becoming rare, ravens are not the cause.
Perhaps a study on habitat destruction by agriculture and management of grouse moors. Grouse moors especially have reduced blanket bog and natural growth of heather to benefit grouse, without consideration to the native species, from invertebrates through to reptiles, amphibians, mammals and birds. The lower order of species are destroyed by heather burning unable to escape from the flames.
The granting of a licence to an area where raptors are frequently and illegally persecuted and the criminals escape our justice system, even when caught red handed, is an abhorrent relinquishing of the SNH. It gives the indication that SNH are merely puppets to the shooting industry.
Don’t be fooled by the false flag of Strathbraan Community Collaboration for Waders, SCCW. It is a screen for the shooting community to continue in their criminal activities and to remain above the law.
SNH have failed to provide an answer to why they feel the need to issue the licence to kill ravens.
—————————————————————-
I also cc to my MP here in England but I don’t expect he will bother to give a meaningful answer, he is a game shooter and supports the industry.
Doug
Alan Drever
That Reporting Scotland piece appears to be no longer available, but the bias doesn’t surprise me. RS also tend to have a toy town approach to environmental stories. If not already set in motion, moves should be made to try & get Channel 4 coverage – with their great investigative spirit coupled to fantastic tenacity!
Right wing MSM making outrageous insinuations again . We are so used to this up here , they put out the headline then if they are called to account they (sometimes) print a correction in tiny print buried at the bottom of page four. But the damage has already been done . They do it constantly because they know they can get away with it , we are fed a pack of lies which fits there establishment narrative, really its brainwashing.
As for Reporting Scotland how can you take their investigative journalism seriously when they cant even be bothered to find out what a Raven looks like . I despair.
At the VERY least Dougout! …. SNH have given them carte blanche to wipe Ravens out in the ‘study’ area and, without doubt, others, elsewhere will jump on the bandwagon.
I see that the CA have released a statement (http://www.countryside-alliance.org/countryside-alliance-statement-on-death-threat-made-to-snh-chairman-over-cull-decision/) on “on death threat made to SNH Chairman over cull decision” which is, in fact, a crude and unwarranted attack on Chris Packham. As usual, they dishonestly try to conflate the ‘rural community’ and ‘blood sports’. They even have the extraordinary gall, given the total lack of consultation about this cull and the obfuscation by SNH about the matter, to complain about Chris Packham not “engaging with the substance of the debate”. They also complain that the BBC has failed “to enforce their guidelines on their presenter” rather than admitting their complaints were thrown out. Finally, they complain that “Mr Packham’s rhetoric has become more and more inflammatory” without any understanding that their persistent denial that there’s a problem is infinitely more inflammatory. It looks like the CA’s statement and the Times article are a flagrant attempt blacken Packham’s name.
On a lighter note that screengrab from Reporting Scotland really does warrant a challenge to readers to come up with the best caption.
May I also highlight and applaud the informed, quality reporting by RPUK and the calibre of comment and response together with the wisdom and knowledge displayed by all who contribute. Much as we have all been incensed by the license issue by SNH,and by Mike Cantlay’s emailed reply, the reasoned, reasonable and responsible tone of this community Speaks for itself.
Is that Jakey Bird?
So now it’s official – SNH, in its service to local communities, now responds to anecdotal fairy stories, unsubstantiated by any scientific research. Not only that, but the aim of monitoring implementation of the cull is the vague objective “to see what happens”! The future of nature conservation in this country is under dangerous threat if our statutory national agency is going to fall for fake “save the waders” groups established by the shooting and farming communities with sinister underlying agendas. Before this utter scandal arose, it would have been hard to believe SNH could be so incompetent and irresponsible. As usual, they deploy the standard game industry line that “the RSPB controls predators, like crows and foxes.” Well maybe it’s time the RSPB changed their policy and practice, and accepted the ethical stance that killing native, natural predators is inconsistent with their strong commitment to wildlife conservation. The slogan isn’t “A Place for Nature (except predators we don’t like)”. We should concentrate on anthropogenic factors which are causing the wader decline, and avoid any tactic which is tantamount to game-keepering. Within my local recording area, almost all the damp grasslands, which held the last vestiges of the Lapwing and lowland Curlew breeding populations, are being sold off by farmers to forestry interests, to plant publicly funded “community woodlands.” Within the county of Renfrewshire, for example, the breeding Lapwing population has fallen from over 300 pairs to fewer than 50 pairs in the past decade, and the winter numbers from 20,000 birds to around 200 in the past thirty years. Ravens were not responsible!
I’m with you 100%. The criticism of the RSPB by Cantlay is fair in so far as he’s highlighting predator control practices.
I remember when the RSPB permitted shooting on its land. I’m not sure if that still goes or why it was permitted by the RSPB but it certainly outraged me!
Policies allowing predator control and pleasure shooting certainly compromise their ethical position on those issues.
‘I’m with you 100%. The criticism of the RSPB by Cantlay is fair in so far as he’s highlighting predator control practices.’
That makes about as much sense as a gamekeeper saying ‘well i kill crows so i should be able to kill Ravens’.
I sympathise with your concerns about killing on nature reserves but it is a symptom of a seriously depleted overall environment. If we could get our environment back to a more wild state then it wouldn’t be necessary. We need more and larger nature reserves so we can allow a more natural balance. Right now are nature reserves are so small and isolated they are like zoos.
I don’t blame the RSPB, i blame the government. We shouldn’t even need the RSPB, they are doing the job are government should be doing. It is a massive con and we have to buy into it because we care.
sorry ‘our nature reserves’.
“Well maybe it’s time the RSPB changed their policy and practice, and accepted the ethical stance that killing native, natural predators is inconsistent with their strong commitment to wildlife conservation.”
People with views like yours are so incredibly dangerous to conservation that I’m worried that there won’t be much nature to conserve. You wouldn’t go to New Zealand and tell them to let the introduced species run rampant because killing animals is wrong.
Conservation in Scotland has gone way beyond the point of just leaving things alone and letting nature get on with it. That’s why the RSPB and other organisations use lethal measures to protect other species. It’s an acceptable and valid strategy.
Please do some reading before your views completely spoil the debate with a leave things alone mentality. There are issues with this licence but the issues seem to circle around gamekeepers and nothing else.
You are clearly only interested in the class war angle of this and stopping the game industry, don’t let your personal vendetta drag acceptable conservation tactics in to this too.
‘There are issues with this licence but the issues seem to circle around gamekeepers and nothing else.’
##
The issues are much more fundamental than that, and I say that as someone who favours predator control where necessary and appropriate.
The issues go right to the heart of what SNH is supposed to be about, and whether as an organisation it is any longer fit for purpose.
Good try Anon, but a bit transparent and only shows up your own prejudices. You can try to sidetrack and obfuscate the debate, based on a contrived conception of my personal ethics, but you’re way off the mark. If you read my comment again, you’ll see that I was referring to “native, natural predators,” avoiding entering into the debate about culling non-native invasive species. I have distinct views on that question which are more complex, but that particular discussion is not relevant to the persecution of Ravens. Such muddled thinking by yourself is no more than I would expect from someone with a not very well hidden shooting agenda.
I agree with you that with this latest blunder by SNH, conservation in Scotland has gone way beyond the point of just leaving things alone. The body which has been granted a licence to massacre one species to protect others is fundamentally flawed because there is absolutely no scientific evidence to justify such drastic action. We can all see the obvious insincere concern for breeding waders by those with an underlying agenda to satisfy their own prejudices against a species which has been effectively demonised by your community. In fact it’s more than just insincere concern, it’s a blatant concoction of lies, an underlying thread of dishonesty which has crept into the agenda of rabid minds within the hunting and shooting mob.
I do not advocate a non-interventionist approach to nature conservation, but I do object to simplistic and contrived methods which come from the barrel of a gun or other inhumane solutions which stem from the Victorian era and beyond. The waders are under threat as a direct consequence of man modifying the environment for his own purposes, rather than allowing a balanced degree of consideration for nature. This applies both locally and on a global scale. A genuine advisory body tasked with conserving nature should be applying science to this overall issue, not responding to calls for uninformed knee-jerk reactions which only serve to deplete biodiversity still further. You and your allies are treading a very dangerous and devious path, and one of the greatest concerns among rational conservationists is that SNH appears to have fallen for the deception, hook, line and sinker. The term not fit for purpose has never been used so frequently before, to describe the country’s nature conservation body.
Bang on, Iain!
Absolutely spot-on Iain!
This is politics and tactics being used to deflect from the real issue.
One moron decides send a ridiculous email and suddenly certain media and supporters of the cull jump all over it with the “dangerous animal activists” angle in an attempt to sway public opinion.
The raven has and still does fascinate many people and groups including, native tribes,vikings, Tower of London, devil worshippers, gamekeepers to name a few.
It is perhaps not surprising that one crazy individual would send an email allegedly threatening to kill the person they feel is responsible for the cull.
Coincidentally mearly saying ” I wish you were dead” does not appear to be a threat in legal terms.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the alleged death threat was just someone saying someone should be ‘culled’.
I have read that phrase many times on this blog’s comments and was just waiting for someone to call it a death threat or as inciting violence.
I think we have to be aware that the grouse lobby are much better at spin than us, it comes naturally to them. This has been years in the planning and they have thrown a lot of money at this, nothing is beneath them. This alleged threat could have come from anyone, if you get my drift.
There again there are some seriously fanatical animal rights people and it could have been such a person. We don’t know but with his use of phrases like ‘conservationist organizations’ i don’t trust Cantley as far as i can throw him (woops a threat of violence).
One wonders whether the death threat wasn’t a straw man attack from those supporting the cull to deflect attention. I wouldn’t put anything beneath their depraved morality.
“We need to explore every method we can to help us protect some of our most loved species – in this case curlews, lapwings, and oystercatchers.”
That very statement from Mike Cantley, gives a revealing insight into this project, so if the project is going to explore “every method we can”, then I assume that for the duration of the project breeding seasons, all sheep and cattle will be removed from the study area.
As has been proven in other areas, nest predation and nest destruction by sheep can be a bigger problem than anything else, so if SNH is truly being serious about wader populations, and doing everything in their power to assist waders, then they MUST remove sheep and cattle immediately.
I too received the bland reply from Mr Cantlay, to which I replied with this:
Mr Cantlay,
Thank you for your reply.
I’m saddened to see that the Raven Cull is going ahead, despite no good scientific evidence being obtained to justify it.
If those who are demanding the licence in the first place, namely members of the Strathbraan Community Collaboration for Waders and their creators within the GWCT, Scottish Gamekeepers Association, the Tayside & Central Moorland Group, Scottish Land & Estates and the Gift of Grouse are, as you suggest, so concerned about waders like Curlew ( UK – 66,000 pairs ) and Lapwing ( UK – 140,000 pairs ) being listed as “Red status in the birds of Conservation Concern (BOCC) review”, then perhaps you can explain why those same people still refuse to stop shooting Woodcock, only ( UK – 55,000 pairs )!
I’m sure you must appreciate the obvious inconsistency in their argument.
Perhaps if they were to agree to a five year cessation of the shooting of all Woodcock in the UK, “to see what happens”, we might be a little more inclined to believe their cries of concern for waders.
Incidentally, you call this a “Raven Research Licence” but is research really the correct title? My dictionary gives this as the definition for research: “the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions.”, but no mention of killing or culling. Surely it would be good practice to carry out your research ‘before’ issuing a licence to cull.
Yours sincerely
Dick Glasgow
Here’s a link to a fascinating live Raven webcam. Thankfully the nest is well beyond the reach of SNH and its random Raven research licensing.
https://www.byko.is/krummi
I think the only way to get this license revoked is going to be by legal action, SNH have shown their colours many times before, they are in the pockets of the Grouse shooting industry. If this is allowed to carry on we will see the same tactics used to see them applying for licenses to control Buzzards and Marsh Harriers.
That said I think they will have killed more than the quota of Ravens already.