Year: 2021

Wild Justice launches two new legal challenges: gamebird releases (again) & the burning regulations

Campaign group Wild Justice (Mark Avery, Chris Packham, Ruth Tingay) has begun the process of launching two new legal challenges in England.

Pre-action protocol letters have been sent to DEFRA laying out the legal arguments for both cases. DEFRA has to respond within a short timescale and depending on the content of those responses, Wild Justice will consider whether to proceed with the cases and seek permission from the High Court to take judicial reviews.

Case 1: Gamebird releases

This case is a natural follow-on from Wild Justice’s successful legal challenge last year on the legality of large-scale gamebird releases on or near sites of high conservation importance (see here and here).

In that case, DEFRA was forced to agree to conduct a review of the harmful ecological impacts of released gamebirds on and near protected sites and to establish a licensing scheme to regulate such releases.

DEFRA has recently (May 2021) issued a new general licence (GL43) in an attempt to meet its obligations but Wild Justice submits that the licence is unlawful in that DEFRA is ‘permitting and licensing the release of gamebirds within European sites and within 500m of European sites, without having properly ruled out the risk of harm of the release of gamebirds in the numbers, densities, and locations permitted under GL43, and has failed to take the necessary steps to prevent the deterioration of European sites.‘

Case 2: Burning regulations

This new case builds on the e-action that was supported by 123,000+ people after it was launched on Hen Harrier Day 2020 (see here) where Wild Justice asked, among other things, for regulation of burning of vegetation on peatlands. 

DEFRA has recently brought in measures which limit, to some extent, burning of upland vegetation but the measures cover, at best, only 40% of the resource (see here for details of the faults). 

The DEFRA proposals have been roundly criticised by non-governmental organisations, by a parliamentary committee and in a special debate in the House of Lords (see here). 

Wild Justice submits that the new Burning Regulations are unlawful on a number of counts:

  • Ground 1: Unlawfulness arising from the Burning Regulations frustrating their own purpose
  • Ground 2: Demonstrable flaw in the reasoning or serious logical error in the reasoning leading to the making of the Burning Regulations
  • Ground 3: Breaches of the Habitats Regulations 2017
  • Ground 4: Failure to take into account Material Considerations, in particular the requirements to act swiftly to limit the emission of greenhouse gases.

Wild Justice has asked DEFRA to make urgent amendments to the Burning Regs. 

[Photo: muirburn on a North Yorkshire grouse moor. Photo by Ruth Tingay]

If you’d like to be amongst the first to know about what Wild Justice is up to, including progress on these two cases and a number of others in the pipeline, you might want to consider joining 40,000+ others by subscribing to the free Wild Justice newsletter (here), delivered directly to your email inbox.

Many thanks to the readers of the RPUK blog who have shown such enthusiastic support for Wild Justice’s work. There’s more on the way….

Legal challenge against Scottish beaver cull gets underway today

Press release from Trees for Life

Legal challenge to Scottish Government’s beaver killing policy to be heard at Court of Session

A legal challenge by Trees for Life to the Scottish Government’s beaver killing policy will be heard by the Court of Session in Edinburgh on Thursday 3 June and Friday 4 June.

Trees for Life says the Government’s nature agency NatureScot is breaking the law by failing to make the killing of the protected species a last resort when management is required. 

The rewilding charity says NatureScot must consider moving beavers to areas of Scotland where they would be welcome and can help boost biodiversity, rather than issuing licences for them to be killed when they cause local damage to farming interests. 

[Photo by Scotland: The Big Picture]

The case aims to ensure a safer future for beavers, which can help tackle the nature and climate crises because their dams create nature-rich and flood-reducing wetlands. Trees for Life also says any management changes must be practical and effective in protecting farmers’ interests.

“A ruling in our favour could transform the fortunes of Scotland’s wild beavers. But whatever the legal outcome, this case is spotlighting glaring inconsistencies in the Government’s approach to protecting this still-fragile native species – and why a more nature-friendly, climate-friendly and farmer-friendly approach is needed,” said Steve Micklewright, Trees for Life’s Chief Executive.

The Government declared beavers to be legally protected in 2019. But NatureScot has since issued dozens of killing licences when beavers are said to be damaging farmland – even though laws on protected species require management to have the least possible impact on their conservation status.

Given the legal protection afforded to beavers and the logic of taking a precautionary approach to their management, Trees for Life is making a strong case that all viable non-lethal alternatives to killing should be explored so that killing of beavers is genuinely a last resort.

Trees for Life agrees with NatureScot that beaver impacts sometimes need to be managed, but believes NatureScot is legally obliged to consider trapping and relocating beavers as an alternative to lethal control of beavers when it issues licenses – something NatureScot contends. 

The court’s view of these arguments will be one of the key points of the judicial review. It is expected that it may be the end of the summer before the court’s verdict is announced.

Lawyer Adam Eagle, Chief Executive Officer of legal specialist rewilding charity The Lifescape Project, which is spearheading the litigation with Trees for Life, said: “We’ve studied hundreds of pages of material obtained from NatureScot through Freedom of Information requests, and we’ve compiled strong arguments that current beaver licensing practices breach the Scottish Habitats Regulations on several fronts.”

A judicial review ruling that lethal control should only be a genuine last resort could allow conservationists and others to identify, with proper community engagement, suitable sites across Scotland to which beavers can be moved and be welcome – boosting biodiversity, creating wildlife tourism opportunities, and preventing potential damage to farmland elsewhere.

Currently the Scottish Government is blocking such relocations, even though NatureScot has identified over 100,000 hectares of suitable habitat. This is limiting the options for Tayside farmers whose land or crops are damaged by beavers, often putting them in the position of having to shoot the much-loved animals.

Trees for Life’s public crowdfunder to cover the legal costs of the judicial review raised over £60,000.

A judicial review – a court review of official decision-makers’ decisions and actions to ensure they are lawful – can only proceed when there is a recognised legal ground and if the applicant has the legal right, known as ‘standing’, to bring a challenge.

Trees for Life is dedicated to rewilding the Scottish Highlands. See treesforlife.org.uk.

ENDS

This subject is off-topic for this blog but is of interest on a number of fronts, not least the tactic of a conservation organisation taking the Government to court to challenge alleged unlawful wildlife policy, but also because blog readers contributed to the crowdfunder to support this legal challenge (here).

Perhaps most significantly though, because in this case Scottish farmers and landowners have joined forces with statutory agency NatureScot to defend this judicial review because they believe the outcome could have impacts on the lawfulness of killing sea eagles, ravens and other protected species (see here).

Good luck in court today and tomorrow to the legal team from Trees for Life.

Trial begins for Millden Estate gamekeeper accused of animal cruelty offences

The trial is due to begin today of a Scottish gamekeeper from Millden Estate in the Angus Glens, who is accused of a number of animal welfare offences related to animal fighting.

Police Scotland and the Scottish SPCA raided a property on Millden Estate and another property in Aberdeenshire in October 2019 after intelligence suggested animal fighting was taking place. A number of dogs were seized (see here).

Alleged offences relating to the Animal Health & Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 resulted in charges being brought against a gamekeeper in December 2020 (see here).

The charges relate to:

Section 19 concerning offences related to unnecessary suffering.

Section 23 concerning offences related to animal fights.

Section 24 concerning offences related to ensuring the welfare of animals.

This is an interesting case for a number of reasons and there’ll be much to say but for now, comments on this blog post will not be accepted until criminal proceedings have concluded.

UPDATE 2 November 2021: New trial date for Millden Estate gamekeeper accused of animal fighting offences (here)

Parliamentary question: when will Scottish Government consult on grouse moor licensing?

In November 2020, the Scottish Government announced it’s long-awaited, and some would argue long-overdue, decision to introduce a licensing scheme for driven grouse shooting, in response to the Werritty Review and in response to the grouse-shooting industry’s utter failure to self-regulate and stop the illegal persecution of birds of prey on driven grouse moors (see here).

Mairi Gougeon, who was the Environment Minister at that time, said in her statement:

“If re-elected, this Government will bring forward the necessary legislation in the next Parliament to license grouse moor management and to strengthen the existing legislation on muirburn, including a range of appropriate penalties that could be applied in cases of non-compliance. Any new legislation will of course be preceded by full consultation in the normal way“

and

“I look forward to discussing these measures with members of this parliament and key stakeholders over the coming months“. 

Six months on from making that commitment, Mark Ruskell MSP (Environment spokesperson for Scottish Greens) is not wasting any time in getting down to business in this new Parliament and is already applying the pressure.

He lodged the following Parliamentary Question on 14th May 2021:

S6W-00039 – To ask the Scottish Government when it will consult on the licensing of grouse moors.

This question was answered on 26th May 2021 by Graeme Dey:

ANSWER: The Scottish Government remains committed to implementing the licensing of driven grouse shooting and is currently developing proposals for a full public and stakeholder consultation with the aim of bringing forward legislation during this parliamentary term.

The timing of the consultation will depend on the legislative programme for the Parliament, which will be set out in due course.

Hmm. The first thing that struck me about this response was who it was from. Graeme Dey is the Transport Minister – his portfolio does not cover grouse shooting as far as I can tell. How very odd that it wasn’t answered by either the Environment Minister (Mairi McAllan) or either of the two Cabinet Secretaries with responsibilities in this area (Mairi Gougeon and Michael Matheson).

The second thing that struck me was the Government’s continued use of language that aims to demonstrate action but actually delivers nothing more than a holding statement. Yes, it’s a standard tactic but it’s oh so bloody tedious. I guess it’s just all part of the pantomime.

Well done Mark Ruskell MSP. Please keep pushing on this – there’s absolutely no reason why the public and stakeholder consultation on grouse moor licensing can’t be started now. Sure, the drafting and processing of new legislation will have to fit into the Government’s programme but there’s an awful lot of work to do before we get to that stage and there’s no legitimate excuse to delay that.

What the Government can be sure about, is that we won’t let it get away with the shambolic lack of urgency it has demonstrated on the parallel subject of increased powers for the SSPCA – a topic it has dragged its feet on since 2011 under a succession of now eight (yes, eight!) Environment Ministers (see here).

‘Grouse moors are being protected at the expense of Scotland’s other wildlife’ – opinion piece

An opinion piece was published in today’s Press & Journal, written by Max Wiszniewski, Campaign Manager for REVIVE, the coalition for grouse moor reform in Scotland.

The article is reproduced here:

An in-depth study of seven shooting estates has shown that over 100,000 foxes, stoats, weasels, crows and so-called non-target species like hedgehogs and dippers are killed on Scotland’s grouse moors every year.

This is one of the most disturbing parts of the circle of destruction that surrounds the controversial grouse shooting industry, which also requires muirburn (the practice of burning off old growth on a heather moor) on a large scale and the mass chemical medication of grouse to sustain itself.

Thousands of snares and traps legally litter Scotland’s countryside with an aim to kill those animals that threaten grouse numbers – so that a few more of them can be shot by a few people for sport.

While some land managers may have legitimate reasons for controlling the number of certain species, with conservationists being among them, maintaining unnaturally high grouse numbers for sport killing should not be one of those legitimate reasons.

The above activities are immensely underregulated, but Scotland’s birds of prey are protected and cannot be killed legally. This is a relief to many, as these iconic birds may otherwise be subject to cruelty on a far larger scale. However, in the depths of our countryside it still goes on – largely because self-regulation by the shooting industry has not worked.

Birds of prey like golden eagles and hen harriers still go missing or are found dead on or near grouse moors – with the satellite tagged ones representing the tip of the iceberg. This has now been recognised by the Scottish Government and a broad coalition in the Scottish Parliament, who wish to hold grouse shooting to account.

Following the Werritty Report by the Grouse Moor Management Group in 2019, despite heavy resistance from the shooting industry, shooting estates will require a licence to operate.

Frankly, it is surprising that they have operated under so little regulation for so long but the terms of this licence should address the industry’s war on our wildlife. More regulation is needed for a bold and consistent approach to wildlife management, not less.

In 2017, an international panel of 20 experts in wildlife management, conservation and welfare created the first international guidelines for ethical decision making in wildlife control. They agreed to “an interdependent and step-wise set of seven principles for managing human-wildlife conflict” – the types of conflict alluded to by our counterparts in BASC Scotland.

The seven principles for wildlife culling discussed by the report can be summarised by the following:

  • Modifying human practices when possible
  • Justification for control required
  • Have clear and achievable outcome-based objectives
  • Cause the least harm to animals
  • Social acceptability
  • Systemic planning
  • Base control on the specifics of the situation rather than labels (like “pest species”)

It is useful to look at our current shooting, snaring and trapping practices within this framework, as it highlights their many flaws and inadequacies. Grouse moors certainly do not meet the standards of these international consensus principles.

The need to kill so much wildlife indiscriminately in order for more wildlife to be killed on sporting estates is unnecessary, unjustified and is not supported by the people of Scotland.

A national poll by the Diffley Partnership showed that around seven in 10 Scots were against the killing of wildlife for the purpose of grouse shooting. It’s up to the industry to prove that this unregulated mass slaughter is not needed to sustain “high bag numbers”. If driven grouse shooting is to continue, it should not be allowed to depend on it.

Wildlife tourism – shooting wildlife with cameras instead of guns – is already worth around five times more to Scotland’s economy compared to grouse shooting and is a bourgeoning industry that requires room to expand. Along with a mosaic of better alternatives, rural Scotland could instead be transformed with thousands more jobs than are currently permitted to exist within the status quo.

It’s time to move forward not backwards in our attitude and treatment of wildlife. It’s time for more regulation, not less, and the seven principles of ethical wildlife control can help us do that.

By ending the war on wildlife in grouse moors we can help unlock our land’s potential, and it will be to the benefit of our people, our wildlife and the environment.

ENDS

REVIVE is a coalition of like-minded organisations working for grouse moor reform in Scotland. The coalition partners are: OneKind, League Against Cruel Sports, Common Weal, Friends of the Earth, Raptor Persecution UK.

If you’re interested in supporting REVIVE’s work, find out how you can get involved here.

Game-shooting industry called out on raptor persecution by one of its own

It’s been almost four weeks since we learned that a deliberately poisoned golden eagle was found on a grouse moor on Invercauld Estate in the Cairngorms National Park (see here).

This abhorrent wildlife crime is just about as serious and high profile as it gets.

[The poisoned golden eagle and the poisoned bait. Photo by RSPB Scotland]

The golden eagle (along with the white-tailed eagle) has the highest level of protection of any bird species in Scotland (not just the bog standard protection given to all bird species, but the gold standard that includes protection of its nest site and protection from harassment all year round).

It’s an iconic species, loved by millions and on most wildlife lovers’ list of ‘must-sees’ when they visit Scotland.

The Cairngorms National Park is supposed to be the UK’s jewel in the crown and again is on the list of ‘must-sees’ for many visitors to Scotland.

It’s no wonder then, that when one of those wild golden eagles is found slumped and cold in the heather on a prestigious estate in the Cairngorms National Park, right next to a poisoned mountain hare bait deliberately placed to kill wildlife, the news is going to be both shocking and prominent.

And it was.

So how come the game-shooting industry has, on the whole, remained silent about this disgraceful crime? The only statement from a shooting organisation that I could find was from Scottish Land & Estates, the landowner’s lobby group. The statement was vague and short on detail (no mention that the golden eagle had been illegally poisoned and no mention that the eagle’s corpse and the poisoned bait had been discovered on a grouse moor on Invercauld Estate, an SLE member, no less, and that this isn’t the first time the estate has been under investigation).

Still, at least SLE published something. As far as I can tell, almost four weeks on there is no statement of condemnation on the websites of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, BASC, GWCT, Countryside Alliance, or Scottish Association for Country Sports.

Doesn’t that silence speak volumes?

I’ve thought a lot about why these organisations, with their vociferous claims of having ‘zero tolerance’ for raptor persecution, should remain silent on such a high profile crime when all eyes are upon them. I haven’t been able to come up with a reasonable explanation because there simply isn’t one. There’s no reasonable explanation, or excuse, for not condemning this crime. None at all.

But where there is ground to benefit is in plausible deniability. In that, if nobody acknowledges that this crime even happened, then the constant denials that there’s even an issue, let alone that it’s an out of control issue, can continue. Think about it. The denials can’t continue if the organisations have previously acknowledged and condemned a recent raptor persecution crime. So the strategy seems to be, shut up, say nothing and it’ll all blow over soon and then we can get back to pretending how much we love raptors whilst simultaneously campaigning for licences to kill them and turning a blind eye every time another one gets taken out on land managed for gamebird shooting.

I’m not the only one to notice the silence and the denial.

The following letter was published in this week’s Shooting Times:

The recent disturbing news of a police raid on Invercauld estate after the discovery of a poisoned golden eagle next to a bait should disgust and anger all in the shooting community. Sadly, for quite a few members of that community, these feelings of revulsion will not be felt.

If any readers can steel themselves to check out the Raptor Persecution UK blog they will find a sickening list [here] of illegally killed raptors from all around the Cairngorms.

If, as shooting’s representative organisations keep telling us, “it’s a few bad apples”, I would suggest that this area of Scotland could well contain the orchard.

Invercauld is one of the most prominent sporting estates in Scotland, with a reputation to uphold around the world, yet this is not the first time it has been investigated in recent years.

This begs the question, how many similar crimes go undiscovered? More pertinently, when they are discovered, how often is the burden of proof insufficient to bring a prosecution?

This fact is well known to the perpetrators, and should be borne in mind when the relative scarcity of successful prosecutions is used by the industry’s representatives to deny the scale of the problem.

Paul Tooley, by email.

I don’t know who Paul Tooley is, but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn this Paul Tooley (above) is the same as this Paul Tooley or this Paul Tooley (scroll down to comments section).

Whoever he is, bloody well done for calling out these organisations.

Although as a campaigner I shouldn’t really mind the industry’s silence. In my view it’s indicative of complicity / covering up / shielding the guilty and that just means we’re another step closer to toppling this filthy ‘sport’.

Peak District gamekeepers need a bird ID course

You know, if you’re going to profess that you’re interested in any bird life beyond those species your customers want to pay to shoot, your credibility will improve somewhat if you’re able to identify what you’re looking at. Otherwise it looks like you’re pretending.

It seems to happen a lot with the game-shooting industry, doesn’t it? (e.g. see here, here, here, here, here).

Here’s the latest one – a screengrab from the Peak District Moorland Group (basically a bunch of grouse moor gamekeepers) who posted this on social media earlier this evening using the hashtag #realspringwatch.

Good grief.

Seriously? This is basic stuff, it’s not even a rare vagrant. If they’re getting this wrong, what else are they mis-identifying?

I don’t think Chris Packham should fear for his job just yet, do you?

Suffolk Police warn public to be vigilant for peregrine egg thieves

Article from Stowmarket Mercury (May 25th 2021)

Thieves will go to ‘extreme lengths’ to steal rare birds’ eggs, police warn

By Michael Steward

The theft of rare birds’ eggs is still a problem in Suffolk and wildlife enthusiasts are being urged to stay vigilant to any suspicious behaviour. 

Although the crime is rare, egg thieves will travel the country to target rare species, according to Suffolk police. 

The peregrine is a particularly targeted bird for nest robberies, and is prized by both egg collectors and illegal falconers.  

It is believed that peregrine eggs can fetch up to £70,000 in the Middle East. 

Sergeant Brian Calver, from Suffolk police’s rural crime team, said thieves will go to “extreme lengths” to get their hands on prized eggs. 

He said: “It’s very rare these days for people to want to collect them but there are still a few hardcore people out there who have got an obsession and take them for their own collections and to swap among their close circles.

“But also, further up the scale, you have got those who will take them for financial gain and that’s normally around raptors. 

“Specifically things like peregrines because in the Middle East you’ve got people out there who will pay a vast amount of money for a wild peregrine. 

“So there are egg thieves who will go to extreme lengths to get them and smuggle them out of the country to trade in the Middle East where it’s almost like gold within an egg shell. They are worth an awful lot of money.

“Those people are rare but they are willing to travel the country to target certain species.”

Operation Easter, which runs across the UK throughout the bird nesting season, targets egg thieves and allows intelligence to be shared with police forces. 

Sgt Calver said Suffolk has seen incidents in recent years and urged the county’s birdwatching community to stay vigilant. 

“A couple of years ago now we had some stone curlew eggs go missing from the Cavenham nature reserve,” he said. 

“So I would like to get a message out to the public and the birdwatching community to be vigilant to anyone who does look out of place or look suspicious. 

“Those who are out there to steal, there will be something about their behaviour which will stand out and look suspicious. It is worth reporting. 

“If they do take them, especially a bird which has got a very bespoke need in terms of its habitat, you’ve only got to take one year’s set of eggs and that can have a massive impact on the species numbers for the future.”

ENDS

Police officer charged with alleged wildlife crime offences after multi-agency raid in Scotland

From an article in today’s Daily Record:

Scots cop charged after dawn raid uncovers ‘peregrine falcon eggs’ kept at rural home

Police Scotland have confirmed that a total of three people have been arrested and charged in connection with wildlife offences at a property in Berwick-upon-Tweed

By Sarah Vesty, reporter

A serving Police Scotland officer has been charged in connection with alleged wildlife offences after an early-morning raid at her home.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is set to appear at Jedburgh Sheriff Court alongside two men, aged 45 and 20, on an undertaking next week.

Officers swooped on the rural property in Berwick-upon-Tweed on Tuesday, May 18, as part of an ongoing investigation into allegations of serious organised crime.

Joined by the Scottish SPCA, they are understood to have seized a number of peregrine falcon eggs and chicks from the address.

Police Scotland have confirmed that three people have been arrested in connection with the recovery and that their “enquiries remain ongoing”.

A force spokesperson said: “Officers executed a warrant in the early hours of Tuesday, 18, May, at a property in Lamberton Holdings in Berwick-upon-Tweed in connection with an ongoing investigation.

“Two men, aged 20 and 45 years, and a 43-year-old woman have been arrested and charged in connection with wildlife offences.

“They are due to appear at Jedburgh Sheriff Court at a later date. Enquiries are continuing.”

A Scottish SPCA special investigations unit inspector, who cannot be named due to undercover operations, said: “We can confirm we assisted Police Scotland in relation to a warrant regarding wildlife offences at a property in Lamberton Holdings in Berwick-upon-Tweed.”

Peregrine falcons are protected under The Wildlife and Countryside Act meaning it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb them near or on an active nest.

The species has historically suffered from persecution and pesticide poisoning with their numbers dwindling to their lowest levels in the 1960s.

Scottish specimens of the bird – which can dive at more than 200mph – are highly prized in the Middle East where they are used for racing by wealthy sheikhs.

Stronger legislation has helped increase the number of falcons in the wild however they are still persecuted for preying on game birds and racing pigeons.

Their eggs have also previously been stolen to order for private collections and falconry.

ENDS

Please note: as this is a live investigation and individuals have been charged I will not be accepting comments on this article until legal proceedings have ended. Thanks.

UPDATE 18th February 2022: Police officer, gamekeeper and son in court for peregrine theft case (here)

Hysteria from Scottish gamekeepers as SNP and Greens formalise talks to cooperate

Earlier this week it was announced that First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was in formal talks with the Scottish Greens over a ‘co-operation agreement’ designed to seal a pro-independence majority at Holyrood. Falling short of a formal coalition, the agreement could in future lead to Green MSPs becoming Ministers as part of the current Scottish Government (see Scottish Greens statement here, BBC news article here and an analysis from the Guardian’s Scotland Editor Sev Carrell here).

This proposed agreement is of huge interest to many environmentalists and although the specific policy areas of potential cooperation have not yet been agreed (see here), tackling the climate emergency (and by default, surely, the nature emergency) should be a prominent feature.

The news of these talks has triggered the Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA) to publish a typically over-the-top scaremongering response about perceived job losses, presumably as a ploy to keep its less well-informed members ready to join a protest at short notice: [Update 16.30hrs – see foot of blog!]

Job losses are of concern to everyone, of course, but as I’ve written previously, the SGA is once again accusing the Scottish Greens of doing something they haven’t done.

‘The Scottish Greens have made it an aspiration to abolish our members’ jobs‘, says the SGA.

Actually, the Greens have done no such thing. In fact in their election manifesto the Scottish Greens have committed to creating jobs in the countryside, promising ‘at least £895M over the next five years in restoring nature whilst investing in rural communities, creating over 6,000 green jobs’.

The Greens are also committed to ensuring that the licencing of grouse moors ‘is properly resourced and well enforced’ – how does that equate to rural job losses if grouse moor managers are abiding by the law?

A spokesperson from the Scottish Greens is cited today in another article about the proposed cooperative agreement amid concerns from fish farmers and National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS):

‘A spokesman for Scottish Green MSPs responded that it was too early to say which issues would arise in talks with the SNP.

He said that environmental harm and fish welfare was a higher priority than phasing out caged fish farms altogether.

He explained that the party’s intention was to support industries in finding alternatives to harmful and polluting activities, and not to force sudden change‘.

Perhaps if the SGA had spent less time and money sponsoring adverts against the Scottish Greens (that went well – great use of members’ funds, not), less time complaining to the electoral commission (how did that go?) and more time reading and engaging with the Greens instead of excluding them from hustings, they’d have a better grasp of what was going on and be in a stronger position to contribute to discussions instead of constantly throwing their toys out of the pram and howling, ‘It’s so unfair’.

Actually, if they’d got any sense at all they’d realise that these talks are not their greatest immediate threat – it’s the continued illegal killing of birds of prey on land managed for gamebird shooting that’s pushing them further and further in to the corner and away from public support.

That poisoned golden eagle, found dead next to a poisoned bait on Invercauld Estate, sent shockwaves through the public, many of whom had no idea this sort of barbarity still goes on.

The SGA’s response? Well I can’t see any statement of condemnation on their website, can you?

[The poisoned golden eagle found lying on a grouse moor next to a poisoned bait on Invercauld Estate. Photo by RSPB Scotland]

UPDATE 16.30hrs:

Right on cue, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association has just published this: