Duncan Orr-Ewing, Head of Species and Land Management at RSPB Scotland, has written a blog discussing the state of raptor conservation in Scotland, how certain species are still suffering due to the ongoing illegal killing associated with land managed for driven grouse shooting, and how the Scottish Government needs to bring about significant change.
Duncan’s blog is reproduced here:
EFFECTIVE REGULATION MUST BE PUT IN PLACE IN SCOTLAND TO TACKLE THE EXCESSES OF “DRIVEN” GROUSE SHOOTING
Most people accept that the conservation prospects for many raptor species in Scotland have improved in recent decades, and since full protection of these birds in the UK from the 1950s. This is most apparent in the rise in the common buzzard population. This bird of prey species has made a welcome return and can now be seen in almost all of the countryside of lowland Scotland, and even in some of our main towns and cities. Like the common buzzard, various other raptor species have re-established their populations naturally, particularly when the main constraint of human persecution has ceased or been significantly reduced. Red kite and white-tailed eagle have been given a helping hand by conservationists, working with landowners, through well planned reintroduction programmes, and are also on the way back.
Raptor species are now amongst the most studied birds in Scotland, much of this work prompted by the effects of organochlorine pesticides on their populations from the 1960s. We have good information on the population distribution of most raptor species, as well as a clear scientific understanding of the main threats to their conservation status. There are a number of native raptor species whose populations have not recovered, and these include the hen harrier. National surveys of this species have shown that the population of hen harriers in Scotland has declined between 2004 and 2016 from 633 to 460 breeding pairs, or by 27%. When you scrutinise the data more carefully there are significant geographical differences; the breeding hen harrier population is doing relatively well on Orkney and the Western Isles but is struggling in the eastern and central Highlands and southern uplands. The authoritative Conservation Framework for Hen Harriers in the UK (Fielding et al. 2011. JNCC) estimated that the Scottish breeding population of this species should be between 1467 and 1790 breeding pairs based on the availability of suitable nesting habitat. So what is happening?
What is now becoming clearer is that many raptor populations in Scotland are held below their potential population levels and range because of continuing illegal human persecution on land managed for “driven” grouse shooting. For the raptor species that have got commoner, it is clear to those who monitor them that even these species are largely absent from “driven” grouse moor areas as breeding birds. Equally, the raptor populations that hang on in these areas do not behave as you would expect – traditional nesting sites become occupied periodically, and then breeding birds disappear or nesting attempts routinely fail in mysterious circumstances. Young birds attempt to breed that would normally be excluded from good sites by adult birds. For those species, like the hen harrier, where grouse moors are their most suitable breeding habitat, and where populations remain heavily persecuted , it is held that their populations simply cannot increase without changes in land management culture and behaviours. Population “sinks” occur where the best habitats are repeatedly attracting nesting birds and these birds are repeatedly killed illegally. Most recently, new technological advances in the study of the survival and dispersal of birds, in the form of GPS satellite tagging, have reinforced the point that many of these marked raptors simply vanish without trace in grouse moor areas. The report “Analyses of the fate of satellite tagged golden eagles in Scotland” (Whitfield et al. 2017. SNH) highlighted that a third of a large sample of marked golden eagles disappeared in precisely this way.
[RPUK map, derived from data in the golden eagle sat tag review, showing the last known location of satellite-tagged golden eagles that had disappeared in suspicious circumstances on or close to driven grouse moors]
Sadly, it is now clear to many people involved with raptor conservation efforts that progress has stalled. Until now, the Scottish Government has made important, but piecemeal changes, to raptor protection laws. These measures have had the desired impact in large parts of Scotland. However, on land managed for “driven” grouse shooting, it is equally evident that raptor persecution is such an entrenched part of their business model, that tougher measures are now urgently required. Our RSPB Investigations team report that ever more extreme measures are being deployed by grouse moor gamekeepers to kill birds of prey and avoid detection, including the use of thermal imaging gear and night vision equipment to kill raptors at night. Many in the grouse moor community will tell you quite openly that they do not believe that they can manage their estates to deliver high grouse bags for sporting clients without breaking wildlife protection laws. This appalling situation has been further compounded in recent decades by the arrival on the scene of a new breed of sporting manager, and the proliferation of more intensive grouse moor management methods, involving ever increasing grouse bags for clients to shoot. This type of operator has commercialised grouse shooting. They have the resources to disregard public opinion; they have little concern for Scotland’s international reputation; and feel safe in the knowledge that it is very hard for the public authorities to bring the perpetrators of these wildlife crimes to justice.
From a RSPB Scotland perspective, we have put significant investment over many years into working with responsible landowners. We recognise that many landowners understand the harm that is being done to their sector by the more extreme grouse moor interests, but are apparently powerless to stop this momentum. We have engaged with conflict resolution processes, including the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project, designed to investigate ways that grouse moors can be managed both legally and sustainably. However, we have reluctantly concluded that amongst the “driven” grouse moor sector at least, there is little appetite to adapt businesses in line with modern day expectations. We simply do not think that further piecemeal changes to wildlife protection laws will be adequate.
The current independent Grouse Moor Management Review Group, commissioned by Scottish Government, is due to report in May 2019. This could be an important milestone if we are prepared to accept that a significant change must occur if we are to tackle the deeply embedded cultural issues concerning the current model of “driven” grouse moor management. This is also why the RSPB supports the licensing of “driven” grouse moors, including proportionate sanctions to remove such licences to operate, where the public authorities have good evidence of illegal activities taking place.
ENDS
Raptor Persecution UK 
Are we at last going to see some progress due to the softly softly approach taken by the RSPB? I hope so, but fear that the freedom from possible persecution due to the actions of the Crown Office Procurator Fiscal Service may well make many moor owners and their employees feel that they can continue their present practices, as shown by your post. Unless estates are forced to allow some authority to maintain cameras on nests, breeding areas, roosting areas and feeding areas on the estates governed by the licence, some may may feel that it may be better to keep on keeping on until they are found out, and consider the options thereafter, if indeed there is any evidence forthcoming. Some of them are clearly already careful, and can get much of the Scottish media onside any time they like.
Perhaps someone can explain to me, why it is, that the Crown Office declines to use supplied video (by the RSPB or otherwise) of offences against wildlife, clearly showing those responsible and the actual crime – and yet- that same Crown Office is happy to accept video evidence from dashcams, householders’ security video etc., when they provide evidence of other (non wildlife) crimes. The requests are often made, after serious crimes, such as murders, road traffic incidents, in which people are killed, or seriously injured, etc.
Is the evidence solicited and supplied in respect of some crimes, acceptable? If so, which law is being used to prevent wildlife crime videos from being accepted by the Crown Office.
Is it too much to ask, if the Crown Office, has made its decision, to prevent its social friends from paying the penalties for their crimes? Looks like they are in someone’s pocket, eh?
Hi Harry,
It’s all to do with cameras being placed on privately owned land, without the landowner’s knowledge or permission.
If wildlife crime such as illegal raptor persecution was categorised as ‘serious’, the police would have the power to install covert cameras on privately owned land for the detection of crime. As the law stands at the moment, they do not have that authority.
Dashcams, householders’ cctv etc are all acceptable because the cameras have been placed with the owners’ permission and not for the sole purpose of recording crime.
It’s not the fault of the Crown Office – those prosecutors are simply applying the law – although they could be more open and transparent with their decisions and they could also be much more creative with the application of the law if they really wanted to be. The main beef with the actions of the Crown Office has been that the prosecutors have been making the decisions about inadmissibility of evidence instead of allowing the court to assess and decide, and then they’ve refused to discuss or explain those decisions to the general public.
I have several issues with the clarification which you have made.
“If wildlife crime such as illegal raptor persecution was categorised as ‘serious’, the police would have the power to install covert cameras on privately owned land for the detection of crime. As the law stands at the moment, they do not have that authority.”
If a policeman comes upon a set and baited pole trap he has the right, under 1(2)(c) of Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000, by way of an immediate response to events or circumstances the nature of which is such that it would not be reasonably practicable for an authorisation under this Act to be sought for the carrying out of the surveillance” to set a covert camera. The various codes make this perfectly clear as well as nullifying the permission aspect. I have some evidence but am not yet certain that the same rights apply to an individual. I am still trying to research this, but even the statement by COPFS on 30 May 2017 says that an authorisation would allow an RSPB investigator to set a camera. The police at the latest Environment Committee said they were unlikely to ever meet the criteria to apply for authorisation. COPFS seemed not to agree in the frankly error laden letter to the convener.
“Dashcams, householders’ cctv etc are all acceptable because the cameras have been placed with the owners’ permission and not for the sole purpose of recording crime.” If these are looking at people or locations which do not belong to the owner would it be acceptable? It is by no means clear. It needs clarification, and may possibly be challenged successfully without this clarification.
“It’s not the fault of the Crown Office – those prosecutors are simply applying the law.“ I cannot even agree here. The law is not as clear as you state.
Lady Dorrian in [2017] HCJAC 25 stated: “The most recent of the cases was reported in 2000. Even since that time there has been a significant increase in the use of video evidence in court. We consider that it is undesirable that the law in this area should be in a state of uncertainty. We consider that this would be an opportune time for the matter to be reviewed by a larger court, and on this ground of appeal alone, we will put the case out for a hearing before a bench of five judges.”. This was before the COPFS statement. Was the hearing ever held? Where is it? The judiciary should have dealt with this many years ago, and as far as I can find out from my initial research, nothing is even yet being done.
I believe that the default position in wildlife crime is that in all cases it will be found inadmissible, and the position is far from certain in many other cases unless the police have clear evidence that there has been no possibility, never mind likelihood, of camera evidence not initially obtained by them being compromised. The gap of time between a video or recording being made and coming into the hands of the police as possible evidence has not in any way been handled as far as I can see, yet a simple protocol written years ago could have dealt with the matter satisfactorily, making it a matter for the defence to challenge rather than the Crown Office refusing admission, who have not bothered to set up a simple protocol as far as I can determine. Many other judiciaries do not have this difficulty, perhaps they bothered? I do not see why I should have to do the work needed to remove all the uncertainty, which should have been done by the Crown Office, as part of my petition, but I may yet do so. I do not know if I can afford financially to do it. I have made yet more submissions to the Public Petitions Committee about my petition PE1705, but have not yet heard if they have been accepted. I will publish parts of the submissions if that does not happen soon. The second hearing of the petition may happen soon, or may not. I don’t know. It is due.
An excellent summery of the current situation. For anyone out there who still thinks conflict resolution is the way forward (and there are a few involved in conservation who hold this view) this is well worth reading. It would be like trying to reduce car theft through a constructive dialogue with those who steal them.
Aye, OK There’s total logic in what you say and I accept that the criminals need to give permission for the cameras to be installed on their property, so that any evidence gained,could be used against them. Despite their protestations of honesty, I hae ma doobts they’d go that far! I suppose the only legal way of using recording equipment, would be by the use of drones in the right place at the right time, but frightening the very species we are trying to protect.
Thanks for the clear explanation of the situation.
“I hae ma doobts” …..priceless.
The deeper we get involved in the confusing discussions regarding how to prevent persecution of hen harriers (and many other species including all crows, even Ravens), the more convinced am I that the only sure way of changing this unfortunate human behaviour is for Parliaments to legislate to protect ALL wild birds. I’d like to see anyone come up with any reason why this should not be considered acceptable, because I’ve yet to hear any convincing argument in favour of killing carrion crows or red foxes, for example. The closest justification put forward is that crows allegedly kill sheep or lambs, but I have to say that in a lifetime of closely observing nature I have failed to see any behaviour by these predatory/scavenging species which could truly justify the cruelty or slaughter inflicted upon them. Sadly I find that RSPB takes a very lax view of this ludicrous scenario which attempts (successfully in certain cases) to justify the need for persecution of selected predator species still extant in the British Isles. (As an aside, in my role as Principal Ecologist with Glasgow City Council, I managed for a while to limit the wholesale slaughter of roof-nesting lesser black-backed gulls in the City, but due to the RSPB’s somewhat relaxed attitude towards the decimation of these fine birds, the Council made a decision to overturn this policy in the light of ‘advice’ coming from the Scottish Government.) I even find it objectionable that red grouse are effectively persecuted and mistreated by being shot in their thousands, and pity the innocent mountain hares which the grouse shooters seem determined to eliminate. Leaving aside the carnivore v vegan debate, is it really necessary to inflict this treatment upon wild birds, rather than leaving them in freedom from human persecution? I’d like to see conservationists fighting to preserve the dignity of the birds, which hopefully would ultimately put an end to hunting. It would be great if the UK could lead the way in creating a countryside in which everyone would be free to enjoy nature in its proper context. The current efforts by RPUK, Mark Avery, Chris Packham et al are a magnificent step forward in pursuing such aims. The RSPB approach is, in my mind, too timid and liberal to expect any significant change from the present shambles. They could do a lot better. Duncan Orr-Ewing’s sentiments were clearly evident in his blog, and his sincerity is not to be doubted, but I can’t help but worry that the upper echelons in the society are too conservative in their overall approach. However I suspect my thoughts will have little if any effect, which is why I continue to despair for the immediate future. Hopefully I’ll be proven wrong.
Interesting article in the Guardian today. The proposed reforms may help end driven grouse shooting in Scotland if they are ever actioned.
Report calls for reform of ‘unhealthy’ land ownership in Scotland
Commission set up by Scottish government recommends new powers to split monopolies
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/mar/20/report-calls-for-reform-of-unhealthy-land-ownership-in-scotland
Wonder how many raptor killers the Police Special Constables in CGNP have caught since being appointed.