On Monday (1 July), the Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA) published a statement on its website in response to the news that golden eagles Adam and Charlie had ‘disappeared’ in suspicious circumstances on a grouse moor in the Strathbraan raven cull area in Perthshire.
It was an astonishingly ill-judged response. It didn’t mention the loss of these two eagles – let alone condemn what looked to be yet another suspicious incident, identical to the loss of so many other sat-tagged eagles on grouse moors. Instead, it focused on the supposed ‘need’ for ‘independent scrutiny’ of satellite tag data (conveniently ignoring the fact that the police now routinely analyse the data of all sat-tagged raptors that have been reported as missing in suspicious circumstances).
To support its argument, the SGA highlight the disappearance of Fred, one of our sat-tagged golden eagles who vanished from the Pentland Hills just outside Edinburgh in January 2018 and whose tag then sent data from the North Sea, several days later, before finally stopping.
According to the SGA, and some of their clueless members/supporters on social media, we apparently withheld some tag data from Police Scotland. Their ‘evidence’ (ahem) to support this claim seems to be centred on two things:
- The fact that two videos were filmed by our team on the same day but published several weeks apart; and
- An FoI response from Police Scotland in response to some poorly structured questions.
Here’s part of the SGA’s post on the ‘need’ for independent sat tag monitoring:
And here is a copy of the Freedom of Information response from Police Scotland, also posted on the SGA’s website:
It appears the SGA have even persuaded their ‘legal advisors’ to show this ‘evidence’ to the police.
Good grief. Unsurprisingly, the police haven’t come knocking and here’s why (probably) –
Yes, we did film two videos on the same day, and published them weeks apart. So what? We’ve never tried to deny that, but much has been made of it over the past 18 months, much to our amusement and bemusement. Our time is valuable, our schedules are tight, we had our film crew in place, why not make the most of that situation and film as much as we could in one day, instead of having to organise another filming day sometime later?
What the SGA don’t know is that yes, at that time we had the additional meta data (that showed Fred’s tag pinging against various telephone masts on its route from the Pentlands to the North Sea) but we were still working out what those data actually meant (it’s not the type of data we were familiar with) and we filmed several versions of what we thought the data were showing us at that time. We were still taking advice from a number of independent experts for some weeks afterwards, including the police, and when we were happy that we understood the data and the limitations of the data parameters, that was the version that was published several weeks later, with the full support of the police.
The SGA thinks that Police Scotland received Fred’s tag data from us on 26 January (because that is what is implied in the Police’s FoI response). However, that is absolutely not the case, and is simply a reflection of the poorly constructed FoI question. Fred’s suspicious disappearance was reported to Police Scotland on 26 January, yes, but they did not ask to see Fred’s tag data at that time. Presumably because they had every confidence in us as legitimate, well-regarded researchers not to question our report that Fred’s disappearance was highly suspicious, along with the backing of experienced tag data analysts at RSPB Scotland. Let’s face it – if you look at the map showing Fred’s movements in the Pentlands and then several days later he’s suddenly 10 miles offshore in the North Sea, you don’t need to be a golden eagle expert or to look at raw data to know that something isn’t quite right. The police launched an immediate search in the Pentlands (and, for the record, worked admirably for the duration of this investigation).
The tag data and meta data were eventually requested by Police Scotland during a phone call on 19th February. It wasn’t clear why it was only then that the data were being requested but we suspected pressure was being placed on the police by, let’s call them ‘external forces’. The data request was fine by us. It was agreed that it would be good for us to meet and go through the data together, including the meta data files. The earliest date that was mutually convenient for us all was one week later on Monday 26 February. We met, discussed the data and agreed that it would be better for the police to have a copy of the original raw data files directly from the tag manufacturer, rather than our files, just to avoid any accusations that we may have tampered with the files (unfounded accusations which were, of course, doing the rounds on social media by those seeking to discredit us and to distract attention from the circumstances of Fred’s disappearance – those ‘external forces’ again).
Incidentally, it was at this time that SGA Director Bert Burnett claimed on social media that we’d fabricated the whole incident with Fred (and thus perverted the course of justice), and made another claim that Chris Packham had refused to turn over the tag data to the police. Quite astonishing (and defamatory) accusations based on no evidence whatsoever. Nothing new there, then.
Immediately after our meeting with the police to discuss the tag data we contacted the tag manufacturer, gave permission for our data to be shared with the police, put the two parties in touch with one another and the original raw data files were sent to the police on 1 March (as accurately stated in the police’s FoI response).
Where the SGA’s logic completely falls down is this. Why on earth would we want to withhold evidence (the meta data) from the police, especially when we believed that evidence supported our earlier suspicions that Fred had been killed in the Pentlands and then his tag (and perhaps Fred too) was transported by road to North Berwick and dumped in the North Sea?
Sorry, SGA, your desperate attempts to smear and discredit us can be seen for exactly what they, and you, are. Pathetic.
Next.
Raptor Persecution UK 
All seems to be very predictable, and we end up back in the tit for tat regime. Clearly shooting estates and golden eagles are in conflict and keepers are killing raptors as and when they can. The law do not know what to do because there is huge money behind the estates and we are in a mess.
Poor hypothesis, ill thought out questions, misunderstood technology – leads to the wrong conclusions. Not very good at the science are they! Their behaviour which they display here is as bad as their behaviour on the ground which they keep hidden but it’s a rearguard action which is already too late.
I can’t wait for the day when we bring these bastards down. They show themselves at every turn for the lying, conniving, deceitful, disingenuous swines that they are. These are the scum that our raptors and other precious wildlife have to deal work on a daily basis. Hopefully these pathetic contortions will only add to the demise of their industry.
Well said! They know why these birds are ‘disappearing’, but among other disgusting tactics try to blame raptor workers and even walkers for missing BoPs. You’re right all those neat short, back and sides and tweeds don’t disguise they’re scum. If any aren’t and feel misrepresented by the SGA time they spoke up.
Thanks, Les. One day we are going to catch one of these bastards at it. Some day, somewhere, it’s going to happen.
Here here Loki I’m with you on that one and it can’t come soon enough
It’s a fairly standard response. In the event of firm negative data and evidence which shows you in a bad light, go on the offensive with wild accusations in an effort to deflect and muddy the waters.
Just look at the recent case where fox cubs were fed to hunt hounds. The investigating officers was smeared by the other side with claims he was having an affair with one of the witnesses and that had to be investigated.
The hunting/shooting brigade with try all sorts of dirty tricks. Keep up the good work in fighting against them. As I said to the other witness in the recent Fitzwilliam trial (which we won), when you have truth on your side you can’t go to far wrong.
In the end, it would have been more believable if they had simply said “a big boy did it and he ran away”.
A better example of withholding evidence is say- when one gamekeeper discovers that another gamekeeper has killed a specially protected species and they then refuses to forward that information to the police. Sounds ridiculous I know- but there is an outside chance that it might have happened….. just possibly more likely than their wee sat tag fantasy?
I wonder…..if the police checked mobile phone records for the Strathbraan area, were any calls made within the six minutes after Adam stopped moving? Could these calls not be triangulated? Who made the call…which “sat tag expert” received the call?
It is an unfortunate fact that the police cannot request mobile phone data because the maximum sentence for the possible crime of killing a golden eagle is only 6 months. The Scottish government has said that the Poustie increases in sentences will be passed this legislative session. My petition will I hope suggest that the sentence for killing a Scedule 1A species which includes Golden Eagle should be increased to 5 years. If we can encourage MSPs to pass this measure then the police will have the necessary powers.
I feel the problem that RP is always going to have with the Fred case, with a seemingly tacit admission in this piece, is that the data on that particular occasion was not fully understood. This has led to a situation where strong pieces appeared in various publications and on the blog implicating the shooting industry in the bird’s disappearance. As time went on, especially as it became apparent that the bird had taken several days to move along the coast and out to sea, there may have been other issues at play. Unfortunately RP have had a long way to row back from the original position. This has now muddied the waters a bit and allowed an angle of attack against any future situation where a tag stops transmitting.
On a slightly different note, and assuming the tag used on the 2 recently missing birds was the same as that used on Fred, which clearly had an issue, is it possible there is a problem with them? I understand they represent fairly new technology compared to tags used in the past. Is this part of the reason for the delay in going public on this occassion, to see if they started transmitting again? Appreciate some clarity on that if possible.
Hi Alauda,
I think you’ve misunderstood. It wasn’t the sat tag data that weren’t fully understood. Those data were as clear as a bell and followed the patterns of tags from over 40 other sat-tagged golden eagles that all suddenly stopped, inexplicably, on or near a grouse moor, with no indication from the tag’s engineering data that a malfunction was imminent.
The data that we didn’t understand, initially, and which is why they weren’t published until a month later, were the meta data. These are data that the tag automatically collects but that us eagle researchers don’t usually see. They are collected by the tag manufacturer to help them develop their tags, and usually are of no interest to those of us focusing on the movements of the birds and how they use the landscape.
In Fred’s case, these meta data were actually of great interest to us and to the police. However, because we were unfamiliar with the data and their parameters, we needed to be cautious, take expert advice and be confident in our interpretation.
Thanks for clarifying. Is it fair to say that the meta data in Fred’s case indicates that there was an issue with the tag, given that it stopped transmitting for a period of days, but was still communicating with phone masts in the area, before transmitting again from somewhere off the coast.
I appreciate that those circumstances don’t automatically transfer to the more recent incident.
Hi Alauda,
There was no issue with Fred’s tag. It had been working perfectly, we’d tracked his movements as he traveled up to the Pentlands and there was no indication in the tag’s engineering data that a malfunction was imminent (typically, the engineering data provide a clear indication of a technical fault, as has been shown by several studies). Fred’s disappearance from the Pentland hills was classed as a sudden stop no malfunction, just like so many other sat-tagged golden eagles that get within range of a driven grouse moor.
You do seem a little keen to give some credence to the SGA’s claims, despite perfectly clear explanations by RP. Is there an axe to grind here?
It would be nice to think that teaching these idiots some basic probability theory and common sense scientific methodology might make a difference, but they have an agenda to maintain. How could the landowners and their ilk be anything but responsible custodians of the land who provide meaningful employment in marginal economic areas? How could anybody with a harsh word to say about them be anything but a lying seditionist intent on bringing an end to respectable society? It does not matter that a low probability of an event taking place by chance, ie under normal circumstances, means that there is a high probability that said event was a deliberate act. Logic and common sense are irrelevant to these people. Anybody looking at the data from Fred would be hard pushed not to conclude that his corpse and tag were indeed driven from where he was murdered to an East Lothian harbour and then taken out to sea to be dumped. If these morons believe they can use this case to discredit anybody but one of their own, they are clearly out of touch with reality. It beggars belief!
https://duncanspence.blog/2019/07/02/disappearing-eagles
This shows SGA grasping at straws! They continue their propaganda with no element of truth.
But sadly I heard on, my local radio, BBC Lancashire at 17.25, 3 July https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07d5g9f them interviewing (a gamekeeper?) and children about a scheme to introduce children to the wonders of the countryside. The primary school children were shown how to set traps to catch foxes, stoats and weasels, no doubt adding comments about these evil creatures. Plucking pigeons was on the menu and tasting them. The area concerned is notorious raptor killing area, The Forest of Bowland.
All funded by Moorland Ass. and Moorland Communities Trust. The scheme seems to be nation wide.
Is this part of their fight back?
Doug
Nothing less than child abuse, the disgusting bastards.
Alauda, as someone who lives nr where Fred went missing and spends lots of time outside, I wasn’t in the least surprised to hear another raptor had disappeared just on he edge of our capital city- I was very surprised it was an eagle however.
The area just a mile from where Fred disappeared was for a number of years a popular haunt for Italians who claimed to have not a word of English to come and shoot pigeons, just exactly as the farmer was harvesting , when raptors were circling high in the sky. I found it uncanny that the days of harvesting varied from year to year, but the Italians still seemed to manage to coincide their dates. I know at least on one occasion in a late summer they were up near woods where Fred went missing , because a man who organises shooting holidays first denied he knew anything about them then told me exactly that when he said I couldn’t possibly still hear them as they were there.There are of course also locals shooting too, and I’ve since realised at least one of the ‘ no English) Italian shooters has lived here 40 years, I have called the police out in years past as it wasn’t just a flurry of pigeon feathers left behind.
By sheer coincidence and no suggestion whatsoever of any connection,the owner of a large grouse moor elsewhere in southern Scotland lives very close to where Fred disappeared, and a man who organises – or used to organise-bespoke shooting holidays anywhere you want in the world, lives/lived hardly a mile away, and the adjoining estate is linked to big shooting estates elsewhere- just for starters -a myriad of possibilities
I am in immense admiration of the courage and skill of RPS , as dealings I have had with certain characters in these has made me glad at the time I was not in unknown countryside far from civilisation
I agree, Alauda. The few gamekeepers I have met have been swines. Only two weeks ago I was wild camping in Glen Lochay, Perthshire and a bell end in tweed showed up accusing me of breaking a wooden bridge – vocalising all of this form afar before he had even approached me. After explaining that I had come down from a hill he calmed himself and then started to grumble about wild campers. I stood my ground and the bugger marched off. Now I’m wondering if he was jumpy because he was a Strathbraan gamekeeper?
Sorry that was a response to carol not Alauda.