Month: May 2020

New energy bar producer donating profits to help tackle raptor persecution

‘Outdoor Provisions‘ is a new-ish company producing natural energy bars and it’s teamed up with RSPB Investigations to help raise awareness, and funds, to tackle the ongoing illegal persecution of raptors.

The company’s logo features the shape of a generic raptor and it’s selling an enamel pin badge of the same design, with 100% of the profits going to the RSPB’s Investigations Team.

The £6 badge can be ordered online here

There’s also a feature page on the company’s website which provides an overview of raptor persecution and encourages customers to look out for signs of suspected persecution crimes and how to report it (see here).

Great stuff! Please show these guys your support!

 

Revive coalition launches political manifesto calling for end to driven grouse shooting in Scotland

Press release from Revive, the coalition for grouse moor reform (6 May 2020)

REVIVE LAUNCHES 2021 MANIFESTO CALLING FOR AN END TO DRIVEN GROUSE SHOOTING

Coalition sets out its political asks one year ahead of Scottish elections

Revive, the coalition for grouse moor reform has published its manifesto outlining a number of asks, including an end to driven grouse shooting ahead of next year’s elections. These include tackling climate change, land reform, social justice and protecting Scotland’s wildlife and biodiversity.

Revive is a coalition made up of Common Weal, Friends of the Earth Scotland, League Against Cruel Sports Scotland, OneKind and Raptor Persecution UK, working for grouse moor reform in Scotland and campaigning to end the circle of destruction that surrounds grouse shooting.

Campaign Manager for Revive Max Wiszniewski said: “Driven grouse shooting, an intensively managed blood sport, is inherently unsustainable. Keeping the land managed as barren monocultures for this sport maintains a large area of Scotland’s land in an impoverished state.

“This is why the Revive coalition has proposed alternative visions for our moors and launched the manifesto we hope political parties will adopt into their own. We believe this is in line with voters expectations and hope a year from now we can go to the polls with all parties committing to address the environmental crisis in our countryside caused by intensively managed grouse moors.”

Revive is calling for significant reform of Scotland’s grouse moors and is asking Scotland’s political parties to make the following commitments:

● Protect Scotland’s peatland by ending muirburn for the purpose of grouse moor management

● A ban on the use of medicated grit

● A change to the use of non-lead ammunition

● Regulation of off-road hill tracks

● Transformational land reform to be enacted on a national scale

● An end to the snaring, trapping and killing of Scotland’s wildlife for the purpose of increasing grouse numbers

● Licensing of all grouse moor estates

● A transition away from driven grouse shooting

Robbie Marsland, Director of the League Against Cruel Sports added: “Untold thousands of wild animals are killed on an industrial scale as part of rigorous predator control on intensively managed grouse moors just so there are more grouse available for sport shooting. The League is opposed to this senseless cruelty and wholeheartedly supports Revive’s Manifesto calling for an end to grouse shooting and the circle of destruction which surrounds grouse moors.”

The coalition argues that grouse moors managed for sport shooting is one of the least regulated industries in Scotland. Along with measures to tackle climate change and transformational land reform, Revive is proposing a licensing system to end the unsustainable elements of grouse moor management.

Director of Friends of the Earth Scotland, Richard Dixon said: “From their terrible toll on wildlife to their impact on climate change, grouse moors are a 19th century idea that should have no place in the 21st century. Scotland can do much better for local communities and nature.”

ENDS

You can read Revive’s manifesto here: REVIVE manifesto

To read Revive’s other publications (as noted in the manifesto) please visit the publications page on Revive’s website here

Prejudice, ignorance & pride are key drivers of gamekeepers’ desire to kill predators

When the full extent of the wildlife crimes committed by Scottish gamekeeper Alan Wilson was revealed last year (see here), it inevitably led to questions by most reasonable people about his motivation.

These questions weren’t restricted to the issue of illegal persecution; they also led to more general discussions about the legal killing of wildlife by gamekeepers, and these questions continue to dominate conversations about game shoot management in the UK.

[Gamekeeper Alan Wilson, convicted in 2019 of nine offences on Longformacus Estate. Photo Daily Record]

A new paper has just been published that provides insight from interviews with 20 gamekeepers in southern England about their motivation for killing predators (legally).

This research was undertaken by George Swan as part of his PhD, successfully completed in 2017. Obviously there are limitations and caveats associated with such a small sample size from a relatively restricted geographic area but the authors acknowledge these and place their results in an appropriate context.

This is an ‘open access’ paper which means that it’s freely available, in full, here.

The paper doesn’t start well. In a scene-setting paragraph about lowland gamebird management in the UK the number of annually released non-native gamebird species is given as ‘>20 million Pheasants and >2 million Red-legged Partridge’. This is a massive underestimate using out of date references.

The most recent estimate of released gamebirds is from 2016 (see here) and is approaching 60 million released gamebirds per annum (47 million Pheasants, 10 million Red-legged Partridge). These figures from the shooting industry are considered to be conservative and are highly likely to have increased again since 2016.

Incredibly, the exact figure is unknown because the game bird shooting industry is virtually unregulated. There is no statutory requirement to register a shoot nor to provide a record of the number of birds released and then shot. Indeed, in this latest paper the authors even acknowledge that they couldn’t themselves establish the size of any of the shoots involved in the survey ‘as the number of birds released was found to be a sensitive question‘!

Moving on to the gamekeeper interviews, the study’s main findings identify six primary motivations for killing predators. These are described as: professional identity, personal norms, potential penalties, perceived impact, personal enjoyment and perceived ease.

It’s really worth reading the detail of these motivators in the paper (jump to section 3 ‘Findings’ if you want to skip the pre-amble). The level of prejudice, ignorance (of ecological predator-prey relationships) and pride (e.g. ‘one gamekeeper explained how he controlled magpies, in part, because other gamekeepers ‘take the Mickey’ [mocked the respondent] when they saw this species on his beat‘) will be shocking to many. The notion of needing to control predators to ‘maintain balance’ is laughable in the context of releasing almost 60 million non-native gamebirds in to the countryside every year!

To be perfectly frank, none of this will come as any surprise to anyone who’s spent a couple of hours reading gamekeepers’ comments on social media. However, it is useful to have these attitudes documented and analysed in a formal scientific way. The authors propose this research could help to understand and mitigate ‘social conflicts’ over predator management.

For others, this research will be beneficial for those of us who consider that urgent regulation of the UK’s gameshooting industry is required. Indeed, many of the findings in this new paper support Wild Justice’s ongoing legal challenges against the General Licences in England and in Wales which, Wild Justice contends, unlawfully authorise the ‘casual killing’ of millions of birds without the gamekeeper having to justify why the killing is necessary and a last resort.

Incidentally, the crowdfunder to support Wild Justice’s legal challenge of General Licences in Wales is just short of reaching its target. If you’re able to help, please click here. Thank you.

 

Birds of prey still being killed despite lockdown

Since lockdown began in March there’s been widespread concern that the illegal persecution of birds of prey would escalate, especially on grouse moors (e.g. see here) where fewer people are around to witness the crimes and/or the aftermath.

The UK’s grouse moors have been the epicentre of raptor persecution crimes for years; Mark Avery astutely described the National Parks that are dominated by grouse moors (e.g. Yorkshire Dales, North York Moors, Peak District, Cairngorms) as “massive wildlife crime scenes” (see here).

But of course, the threat to UK raptors isn’t just restricted to areas managed for driven grouse shooting. These birds are targeted and killed in the lowlands too, and quite often (although not exclusively) on land being managed for pheasant and partridge shooting.

Just two weeks ago a red kite was reported as shot on land managed for pheasant shooting, with another two birds also suspected to have been shot at the same location (see here).

It seems that the conservationists’ concerns were well founded. Despite the country being in the midst of a national crisis, and despite the shooting industry’s claims to have a ‘zero tolerance’ of raptor persecution (see here), the killing continues.

Police Supt Nick Lyall, Chair of the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG, the so-called partnership that aims to tackle the illegal killing of raptors) tweeted this yesterday:

Nick singles out North Yorkshire but we’re also aware of a spate of other suspected raptor persecution crimes during lockdown, in a number of other counties across England and Scotland. Most of these have yet to be publicised as police investigations continue but hold on your hats, folks, when they are finally publicised the list is going to be long and damning.

Scottish Gamekeepers Association ‘negotiating with Government’ for new offence of trap damage

News emerged this week, via the Scottish Gamekeepers Association’s (SGA) e-newsletter for members that it is currently ‘negotiating with Government’ for the creation of a new offence relating to trap damage:

This is really quite interesting. The SGA, with others, has been arguing for several years that legally-set traps have been ‘tampered with’ or damaged by members of the public and these claims usually occur just after an illegally-set trap has been discovered and reported in the media. A recent example of this was the male hen harrier that was found in considerable distress with its leg almost severed in an illegally-set trap on Leadhills Estate (see here).

[Male hen harrier found with an almost severed leg, caught in an illegally-set spring trap next to its nest on Leadhills Estate (see here). Nobody has been prosecuted for this barbaric crime but the estate has had its use of the General Licence restricted by SNH as a direct result of this and other offences (see here)].

The implication of such claims has seemed clear – instead of accepting that some gamekeepers continue to break the law (e.g. by setting illegal traps), the shooting industry would rather deflect the blame on to so-called ‘animal rights extremists’ who are accused of ‘setting up estates’.

During a cross-party RACCE committee hearing in 2013, then Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse said there was no evidence to support claims of widespread trap tampering/damage by ‘activists’ (see here) although it emerged that BASC was undertaking a survey to assess the extent of this alleged problem.

A couple of years later in 2015 that BASC survey revealed that trap tampering/damage did take place but according to industry evidence, it couldn’t be described as being a ‘widespread’ issue (see here).

In 2017 the SGA again complained of a so-called ‘escalation’ in trap damage and again attributed this to ‘activists’ but as we reported at the time (see here), yet again the evidence was lacking.

Let’s be clear here though. It is quite evident, just looking through social media, that some members of the public are indeed deliberately damaging traps to render them unusable, either because they have an ethical objection to the killing of native wildlife to increase gamebird stocks, or because they’ve become so frustrated with what they perceive to be a lack of enforcement action against the criminal gamekeepers, or because they believe the trap to be illegal. The legislation on trap use is complicated and many members of the public are simply unaware of what is legal and what is illegal. (For a basic introduction have a look at this from OneKind and this from Revive).

To be honest, we’d welcome some clarity on what constitutes ‘tampering’ or ‘damage’. At the moment it is not at all clear and trap tampering may not always constitute a criminal offence. For example, the SGA’s lawyer, David McKie, wrote in a 2013 edition of the SGA’s members’ rag:

‘As a matter of law, there is a significant difference between interference and vandalism.

Vandalism would involve the breaking of a crow cage trap by someone punching or kicking a hole in it, for example, or the deliberate smashing up of a Fenn trap. It would also include the cutting of snares.

Interference does not necessarily involve a criminal offence….That can involve the removal of traps from their set location, the release of decoy birds or the pulling of snares.

The police can probably not charge the individual with interference’.

In some cases there may be a legitimate defence to causing trap damage – e.g. if a trapped animal is seen to be injured inside a padlocked crow cage trap and needs urgent veterinary attention, but the location is remote and there’s no phone signal to call for help, it might be considered reasonable to cut the trap wire to extricate the wounded animal. Much will depend on the individual circumstances of each incident.

Another example might be the discovery of what is obviously an illegally-set trap. Is it an offence to disable it if there is absolutely no question that it’s been set unlawfully? As an example, here’s a pole trap that was photographed on an estate in the Angus Glens. It’s been an offence to set pole traps for over 100 years!

[An illegal pole trap, photograph by RSPB]

It’d be kind of ironic if a member of the public was prosecuted for disabling such a pole trap, when the person who allegedly set it (a gamekeeper was filmed by the RSPB attending the trap) had the prosecution against him dropped by the Crown Office because the video evidence was deemed inadmissible!

So, yes, regardless of the extent of trap tampering / damage, greater clarity is certainly required on what constitutes an offence. However, given how long we’ve been waiting for the Scottish Government to bring in new legislation to tackle the persistent illegal persecution of birds of prey on sporting estates, that’s happening at such a scale it’s known to be affecting entire populations of some of these species, the trap tampering offence that the SGA claims to be ‘negotiating’ should be way down the list of Government priorities.

UPDATE 12 May 2020: Parliamentary questions on proposed new offences for trap damage (here)

UPDATE 16 May 2020: Scottish Government denies ‘negotiating’ with gamekeepers on new offences for trap damage (here)