In October this year, the Scottish Government finally launched a consultation seeking the public’s views on its plans for grouse moor reform. Proposals under the Wildlife Management (Grouse) Bill include provisions to introduce a licensing scheme for grouse shoots, muirburn licensing and increased regulation on the use of traps used to kill so-called ‘pest’ species on grouse moors. The consultation closes this Wednesday (14th December 2022).
A couple of days ago I wrote about the response that conservationists were planning to submit (see here), including a guide for your own response.
I mentioned in that blog that the grouse shooting industry was also corralling its members, seemingly in an attempt to flood the consultation with arguments designed to weaken the proposed licensing scheme. This shouldn’t come as any surprise, given the industry’s previously very public histrionics against licensing, as well as its denials that any sort of reform is even required (e.g. see here, here, here, here, here and here).
The landowners’ lobby group Scottish Land & Estates (SLE) has been quietly distributing a document amongst its members and supporters called ‘A Call to Action for Guns’ in which it goes through the Scottish Government’s consultation document and provides suggested responses. The full document is published at the end of this blog but I just wanted to highlight a few of the sections because if nothing else, they demonstrate the brass neck of this lot.
Here’s the opening statement:
Here’s their suggested response to Question 1 of the consultation:
The Scottish Government should laugh this response out of the door. High levels of wildlife crime on (some) grouse moors has been unequivocally demonstrated time and time and time again. Indeed, ongoing raptor persecution on some driven grouse moors is EXACTLY what has prompted the Scottish Government to bring in licensing, as stated repeatedly by successive Environment Ministers (e.g. see here and here). To pretend otherwise, at this stage of the game, simply highlights the industry’s intransigence and confirms why Ministers consider licensing necessary. It’s not as though the grouse shooting industry hasn’t been given multiple warnings and opportunities to reform (e.g. see here).
Here’s SLE’s suggested response to Question 10 of the consultation:
Again, the grouse shooting industry is asking for the status quo to remain because it knows how difficult it is to bring about criminal convictions for wildlife offences on grouse moors, given the remoteness of the locations, lack of witnesses, and the extraordinary lengths that the criminals will go to hide their crimes (e.g. see here). Even when sufficient evidence is gathered for a criminal prosecution, it is often ruled ‘inadmissible’ or ‘not in the public interest’ to proceed (e.g. see here, here, here, here, here, here). The odds have been stacked against the wildlife crime enforcers for decades and this proposed legislation seeks to address that imbalance. If I was a criminal gamekeeper or criminal sporting agent or criminal grouse moor owner, I too would be worried. Those who aren’t criminals should have nothing to fear.
And yes, the consequences of losing the right to shoot are significant – that’s kind of the whole point. If you don’t want to suffer the consequences, don’t break the law. It’s quite straightforward.
Here’s SLE’s suggested response to Question 14 of the consultation:
This is just trying to fudge the issue. I don’t think any informed person would argue that the illegal killing of raptors “occurs exclusively on grouse moors”. Of course it doesn’t. But there’s a massive weight of scientific evidence and crime statistics to demonstrate that illegal raptor persecution occurs disproportionately on some driven grouse moors, and THAT is what this licensing scheme is seeking to address.
And as for the “real risk of sabotage against sporting rights holders by those who oppose grouse shooting”, this argument that gamekeepers and estates may be ‘set-up’ was also used by SLE in 2012 when objecting to the introduction of vicarious liability for raptor persecution offences (see here). Ten years on, there hasn’t been a single case where this has been shown to have happened, but there have been plenty of cases where gamekeepers have been caught committing criminal offences as part of their daily routine.
I don’t have time (nor the will) to go through each of SLE’s consultation responses but if you’re interested, here it is in full:
For those of us who don’t want to see the status quo remain, and are sick to the back teeth of the grouse-shooting industry getting away with wildlife crimes, especially against birds of prey, there’s still time for you to participate in the public consultation (it is open to everyone). Even if you just tick the boxes (without needing to write additional comments), it all helps to demonstrate to the Scottish Government that this is an issue we care about. If you want to go further and add some commentary, you’ll find suggested guidance here.
The consultation closes the day after tomorrow (Weds 14th December 2022).
Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) has granted a controversial licence permitting Moy Estate gamekeepers, and others from the Three Straths Fox Control Association, to hunt and kill foxes on Scotland’s national forest estate, partly for the benefit of privately-owned grouse shooting estates, including Moy Estate.
This is the same Moy Estate that has been at the centre of police investigations into alleged raptor persecution crimes for over a decade (e.g. see here) and is currently serving a three-year General Licence restriction, imposed by NatureScot, after evidence of wildlife crime (raptor persecution) was again uncovered on the estate.
This is a map I produced a few years ago showing reported raptor persecution incidents in the region between 2005-2016. There have been many more since.
Wildlife campaigners are understandably furious about this decision, not least because FLS’s own experts strongly advised against it due to, amongst other things, the potential for illegal activity.
Journalist Billy Briggs has written an excellent article, based on Freedom of Information responses I received this autumn. His article is published today by The Ferret (here, behind a pay wall) and also here in The National, as follows:
LICENCES for a foot pack to kill foxes were issued by Forestry and Land Scotland despite strong objections from internal experts who feared there was potential for “illegal activity” and protected species such as badgers to be disturbed.
A foot pack – in contrast to traditional fox hunting with riders on horses – is where a huntsman, accompanied by colleagues acting as beaters, uses hounds to chase foxes out from cover to then be shot.
Critics who want hunting with packs of dogs banned in Scotland are urging Scottish Government ministers to outlaw foot packs as well as mounted hunts.
The Ferret previously revealed that foxes were being chased by hounds and shot by foot packs in forests used by the public.
Our investigation prompted angry responses from wildlife groups who have condemned Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) once again for issuing more licences. FLS is responsible for managing and promoting Scotland’s national forest estate.
A freedom of information request was submitted to FLS by campaign group, Raptor Persecution. The reply revealed internal discussions at FLS in September and October after Three Straths Fox Control Association (Three Straths) applied for licences for fox control in the south Inverness area.
The documents, passed to The Ferret, showed that FLS experts strongly advised against the foot pack being allowed to hunt.
Map showing the woodland where FLS has permitted the hunting & killing of foxes during the 2022-2023 season. Released to RPUK under FoI.
The licences were issued, however, prompting condemnation by critics. They included the League Against Cruel Sports Scotland which said it was “quite staggering” FLS granted permission in the face of “vehement concerns” by its own staff.
In reply, FLS said it appreciates that fox control is a “contentious issue” but under existing legislation the activity is legal in Scotland and “closely regulated”.
Three Straths told The Ferret it always adheres to the law to “ensure public safety and to avoid non-target species”, adding that it provides a “public service at no cost to the public purse”.
The licence application said Three Straths represented a “number of sporting estates” seeking to hunt foxes on the Moy, Farr, and Dalmagarry estates. Each hunt would typically involve 30 people including local gamekeepers, 20 to 30 guns, 15 hounds and a huntsman.
The hounds are used to flush the fox from cover to a line of waiting guns where the animal is shot.
The foot packs are overseen by a wildlife team at FLS, but some staff still opposed Three Straths’ application.
Internal documents revealed one person wrote: “As a minimum we should request a protocol for how the operators (the foot pack) will deal with encounters with protected species. This was asked for at the last permission request but I have not yet seen it. As discussed before, without this I feel the activity cannot be done without potentially disturbing legally protected species and could lead to an illegal activity.”
They added: “As this is a known activity any disturbance could be classed as reckless under the law and would constitute an offence. FLS as the landowners would also be liable for allowing the activity to take place. Given the risks, lack of mitigation information and lack of rationale for why the activity is needed, I would strongly advise it is not allowed.”
Another expert — a species ecologist — also objected and wrote: “As I [sic] have pointed out several times previously, fox ‘control’ at this time of year has no impact on fox density the following spring. This is a matter of scientific fact. If the intention is to reduce (assumed) fox impacts on the shootable ‘surplus’ of grouse in 2020, it is a pointless exercise.”
They added: “Furthermore, I am not aware of any evidence that these foxes actually eat game birds on adjacent estates. To sanction this controversial activity without any evidence of an actual problem is inadvisable. For the record, and for the reasons I have listed in previous communications, I reiterate my advice that we should not give permission for this activity.”
It was also noted that internal concerns had been raised in previous years regarding requests by Three Straths to hunt, which were “not adequately addressed”.
Staff also pointed out that foxes are “part of the forest ecosystem” and “we should not be unsustainably removing any native species”. They said: “As we have no idea of the current population (no surveys have been undertaken) then effectively this could extirpate foxes on our land. We know foxes play a valuable role in keeping populations of other predators in check and in reducing rabbit and hare populations, thereby reducing damage to restock sites.”
Concerns were also raised over public safety and “verbal assurances” given by Three Straths that hounds would only chase foxes. There was a “real risk” that a bolting fox could go down the entrance to a protected species den or sett to escape the dogs, it was noted, and people firing guns on a badger sett “would be a disturbance in itself”.
Dr Ruth Tingay, of Raptor Persecution, who submitted the freedom of information request, pointed out that Moy Estate is currently serving a three-year general licence restriction, imposed by NatureScot, for wildlife crimes against birds. Moy Estate reportedly said it was extremely disappointed by the decision and would be considering an appeal. [Ed: Moy Estate has already lost its appeal against the General Licence restriction – see here].
Tingay said: “The rationale behind the restriction is that NatureScot can no longer trust Moy Estate to comply with the terms of the general licences after evidence of raptor persecution was provided by Police Scotland.
“So why on earth has FLS entrusted Moy Estate to comply with the terms of a licensed fox hunt, in a public forest, with what looks like minimal oversight and scrutiny? Don’t these licensing agencies talk to one another?”
Bob Elliot, director of the animal welfare charity, OneKind, argued that FLS fox control policy should reflect the views of the Scottish public who “overwhelmingly do not support fox hunting”.
He added: “It is incredibly disappointing to see that once again, despite several serious objections raised internally by Forestry and Land Scotland staff, FLS has granted permission to allow foot packs to kill foxes in Scotland’s public forests this winter.
“We know from our previous freedom of information requests to FLS that many of the concerns raised by FLS staff, including the non-necessity of fox hunting foot packs, the importance of foxes to the ecosystem, and the threat to other wild animals, have in fact been raised before.”
His views were echoed by Robbie Marsland, director of the League Against Cruel Sports Scotland, who said it was “quite staggering that despite vehement concerns” the licenses were issued.
He added: “The situation at FLS is yet another reason why it is imperative the new Hunting with Dogs Bill passes through parliament in the most robust form possible, ensuring hunting with dogs is really banned in Scotland once and for all.
“The existing legislation is so full of loopholes it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on and time and time again we’re seeing those who wish to hunt wild mammals with dogs for fun, simply ignoring the fact this activity is supposed to be illegal.”
A spokesperson for Forestry and Land Scotland said that in “all aspects” of its land management activities it has a duty to “follow the law and existing policies” when considering requests. “Only if there was a change in law and Scottish Government policy would we be in a position to review our procedures,” the spokesperson continued.
‘ORDINARILY FLS only controls foxes to meet specific conservation interests. However, we also appreciate that neighbouring land managers’ priorities might differ from our own and will assist where it is deemed appropriate. We continue to have our own staff monitor fox control activities.”
A spokesperson for Three Straths accused FLS experts of having a “personal bias” against predator control, adding that none of the objectors had come out with the foot pack to witness a hunt for themselves, despite being asked.
“We always have FLS staff out with us on days we are in the forest and in the 25 years I have been involved, not one of them has raised any complaint about our practices,” said the spokesperson. “On the point about controlling foxes at the time of year we do, making no difference. That is nonsense, areas where foxes are controlled all year round have a far smaller fox population and ground nesting birds breed far more successfully because of the control.
“We also used to hunt into the spring and summer on FLS land which did do a lot of good but we were stopped by the same ecologist who quotes that we are hunting at the wrong time of year now. His comment about no evidence to suggest foxes eat ground nesting birds just goes to show how far removed from reality some of these people can be.”
The spokesperson continued and said Three Straths controls foxes for the “good of all ground nesting birds”, not just game birds. “Many of these species are in dire straights [sic] at the moment and need all the help to survive they can get,” they added.
“Upland sporting estates are their last stronghold and their last chance of survival.”
A Scottish Land & Estates spokesperson said: “The predation of wild birds such as capercaillie, black grouse, curlew, golden plover, grey partridge, lapwing and oystercatcher continues to be a huge problem, with widespread declines in populations of these birds across Scotland since the 1960s.
“The control of foxes, alongside other predators such as crows and pine martens, is important in improving the breeding success of these birds. Predator control takes place when it is deemed necessary and in accordance with regulations.”
The Hunting With Dogs (Scotland) Bill – published in February and currently going through the Scottish Parliament – seeks to replace a widely criticised 2002 law which aimed to ban fox hunting in Scotland.
Both Farr Estate and Dalmagarry Estate were asked to comment. We were unable to contact Moy Estate directly so made an indirect approach through Three Straths.
ENDS
This isn’t the first time that a licence permitting fox hunting in public forests around Moy has been a source of controversy. Last year, Freedom of Information requests to FLS by campaigners from animal welfare charity OneKind revealed that FLS staff suspected that gamekeepers were visiting the forests to look for fox dens to block up, which also happened to be beside Schedule 1 raptor nests, some of which have been repeatedly attacked in previous years (see here).
And of course it’s not just FLS turning a blind eye to wildlife crimes uncovered on and around Moy Estate (e.g. see here, here, here).
In October this year, the Scottish Government finally launched a consultation seeking the public’s views on its plans for grouse moor reform. The consultation closes on Wednesday 14th December 2022, so this is your final chance to provide your views on what is being proposed.
Proposals under the Wildlife Management (Grouse) Bill include plans to introduce a licensing scheme for grouse shoots, muirburn licensing and increased regulation on the use of traps used to kill so-called ‘pest’ species on grouse moors.
To say that driven grouse moor reform is long overdue is somewhat of an understatement. This ‘sport’ has been virtually unregulated since it began approx 150 years ago and much of what happened in the Edwardian and Victorian age still goes on today (albeit more intensively and commercially in many areas) including the illegal killing of birds of prey, which is the principle reason the Scottish Government has finally decided to act.
The campaign to get to this stage has been long and brutal and has come at a high personal cost to many of the individuals involved. It has been a hard-fought battle and this is why it’s so important that people now take part in the consultation process. The grouse-shooting lobby is urging its members to contribute – I’ve been sent a copy of how they are intending to respond, which includes ludicrous claims about there being ‘insufficient evidence’ of high levels of raptor persecution on grouse moors (I know!!). I’ll share their response in a separate blog but it highlights why we need to show a strong response in support of the Government’s licensing proposals.
That’s not to say the licensing proposals are perfect – they’re not – but this is our opportunity to make sure that they can be as watertight as possible.
I’m aware that some campaigners on ‘our side’ are very unhappy that licensing is coming in; they would prefer to see an outright ban on driven grouse shooting. That’s a view I understand but right now, a ban is not on the table. It’s either a licensing scheme or the status quo. Those are the two options. If licensing proves to be ineffective, then the campaign for a total ban will be strengthened. Maintaining the status quo is unthinkable, so let’s be pragmatic and work to secure the best standard of licensing that we can get.
The consultation is easy to respond to and anyone can participate – you don’t need to be a member of an organisation, your view as an informed member of the public is just as valid.
REVIVE, the coalition for grouse moor reform, has provided an easy supporter’s guide to help you complete the consultation – see here.
Most of it is a tick-box exercise, but there are also sections where space is provided for you to add your own comments. REVIVE has listed some suggested topics that you may wish to include, but has deliberately not provided statements for cut and paste. It’s important that you use your own words to have greater impact – if everyone submitted identical responses, the Government is likely to lump them all together and count them as a single response instead of the views of many individuals.
I’ll be submitting my own personal response this weekend. As mentioned above, I’m generally in support of the principle of licensing but I do have concerns about effective enforcement. Without that, a licensing scheme will be utterly pointless. I will be urging the Scottish Government to introduce a licensing fee that is sufficient to fund rigorous and effective compliance monitoring and enforcement, and to implement that fee now rather than later, as has been proposed.
I’m also deeply concerned that the proposed licensing scheme excludes the shooting of red-legged partridges and pheasants on land managed for grouse shooting, and instead focuses just on the shooting of red grouse. There is an increasing body of evidence that demonstrates red-legged partridges (RLPs), and to a lesser extent, pheasants, are being released on grouse moors for shooting, either as a proxy for red grouse (in low stock years) or as an additional target species to boost income. When the grouse shooting licence scheme is introduced, it would be very simple for shoot managers to switch from shooting red grouse to shooting RPLs, thus side-stepping the licence (which is currently red grouse specific) and continuing with the very activities that this licencing scheme seeks to end (illegal raptor persecution). It’s a gaping loophole that needs to be closed off before it is exploited.
[This photograph was taken on Buccleuch Estate earlier this year]
For those who haven’t yet read the Government’s proposals, you can do so here:
If you want to use REVIVE’s guide for responding to the consultation, please click here.
Remember, the consultation closes on Wednesday 14th December 2022.
Thank you for your help and support.
UPDATE 12th December 2022: Don’t laugh, but here is the grouse-shooters’ consultation response to licensing (here)
UPDATE 13th December 2022: ‘Golden opportunity to tackle bird of prey killings & stop peatland burning in Scotland’ – RSPB blog on grouse moor licensing (here)
A couple of weeks ago the RSPB published its latest annual Birdcrime report (2021), which showed that England had the second-highest record of raptor crimes since recording began (see here).
It was noted that yet again, over two thirds (71%) of all confirmed incidents of raptor persecution took place on land managed for gamebird shooting, where birds of prey are seen by some as a threat to gamebird stocks and illegally killed.
The Birdcrime report prompted a Parliamentary question from Holly Mumby-Croft MP as follows:
This was answered two days ago by the latest Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at DEFRA, Trudy Harrison MP, as follows:
Regular blog readers will know that this is just yet another DEFRA Minister trotting out the same tediously-predictable guff designed to look as though DEFRA has the raptor persecution issue under control.
We’ve heard virtually identical responses from previous DEFRA Ministers, e.g. see this from Environment Minister Rebecca Pow in September 2021, and this from Richard Benyon in February 2022, and this from Rebecca Pow in February 2022, and this from Richard Benyon in April 2022. And now the same again from Minister Trudy Harrison.
As I’ve said many times before, there’s a running theme in these responses which, under closer scrutiny, does not stand up as evidence that DEFRA is tackling the issue, let alone acknowledging it.
For example, yes, custodial sentences are available for these crimes but they have never once been applied to raptor-killing criminals in England, and only once in Scotland, and that was eight years ago.
And yes, DEFRA supports the sham-partnership that is the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG) that has been in place since 2011 but it’s a group that has delivered precisely nothing of any use and is currently without a Chair because the position is so toxic and career-damaging that no senior police officer wants to take it on. The last Chair, Inspector Matt Hagen, stepped down after he was told he was not allowed to talk to the press about raptor crime. This ridiculous constraint was prompted by an interview he gave to National Geographic last year (here) in which his brutal honesty laid bare the scale of the problem.
I did note something new in this latest DEFRA response though – that it has provided funding to develop DNA analysis to help support investigations into peregrine theft. That’s good, but it doesn’t tackle the issue of the illegal poisoning and shooting of peregrines on and around driven grouse moors, a serious threat that is so widespread it is affecting the population distribution and has been known since at least 2011 and has been highlighted many times since (e.g. see here).
When will DEFRA Ministers stop pretending, stop with the wilful blindness, and start tackling these crimes?
Further to yesterday’s blog about the discovery of a poisoned Red Kite, found in close proximity to a poisoned bait (a Lapwing) on Dava Moor in May 2021 (see here), there has been a development.
In yesterday’s blog I mentioned that I was curious about why, 19 months after the crime was discovered, there hadn’t been a General Licence restriction imposed on this grouse moor.
I’ve been in touch with NatureScot about this and they’ve confirmed that they didn’t know the investigation had concluded but now that they do know that, they’ll be contacting Police Scotland and requesting the documentation on this case, which NatureScot will consider under the General Licence Restriction Framework to see whether the threshold for a restriction notice has been met.
Excellent news, well done NatureScot.
Given the lengthy procedure involved under the Framework, including giving the landowner/shoot operator an opportunity to provide a defence, we won’t hear about the decision until well into the New Year.
UPDATE 17th January 2023: Police Scotland confirm red kite found poisoned on grouse moor had been killed with banned pesticide (here)
A young satellite-tagged Red Kite has been found poisoned on a Scottish grouse moor, lying next to a poisoned bait, in this case, a Lapwing, whose corpse had been cut open to entice any passing predator and to allow for easy access to the poison.
This gruesome discovery was made by a member of the public on 20th May 2021 on Dava Moor, just beyond the boundary of the Cairngorms National Park.
The Red Kite had hatched in a nest near Grantown on Spey in 2020. This nest was only the second to be located in Badenoch & Strathspey; the first pair at nearby Cromdale disappeared after just one successful breeding season. That only two nests have been located in Badenoch & Strathspey, 32 years after the start of the re-introduction of red kites to the Black Isle, speaks volumes of the ongoing illegal persecution in this region, as noted in a scientific study published in 2016 (here).
Police Scotland attended the scene of the poisoning and collected the Red Kite and the Lapwing for toxicology analysis. They also conducted a search of the grouse moor the following week. Toxicology tests confirmed the presence of poison in both the Kite and the Lapwing.
Sixteen months later in September 2022, Police Scotland notified the member of the public that ‘enquiries are complete, nobody has been charged and the case is now closed‘.
So where was the Police Scotland press release about this serious wildlife crime?
Where was the appeal for information about this serious wildlife crime?
Why has the name of the poison been withheld? Given the proximity of the poisoned Red Kite to the poisoned bait, we can assume it was a fast-acting, highly toxic poison, dangerous to humans as well as to wildlife. Was it one of the eight poisons (Aldicarb, Alphachloralose, Aluminium phosphide, Bendiocarb, Carbofuran, Mevinphos and Sodium cyanide and Strychnine) banned under the Possession of Pesticides (Scotland) Order 2005, so dangerous it’s even an offence to be in possession of these chemicals, let alone to place them out on a bait in the open countryside?
Where was the warning to both locals and visitors to the area from Police Scotland about this serious threat to public safety?
Who benefits from this secrecy? Not the public, that’s for sure, and not wildlife.
Police Scotland has form for withholding information about raptor persecution crimes (e.g. see here, here, here, here). It’s noticeable that yet again, in the RSPB’s latest Birdcrime Report (2021), Police Scotland is the only force (with the exception of Dorset Police – on which more shortly) to withhold details of crimes that took place over a year ago.
I don’t know who’s making these decisions – I doubt very much it’s the wildlife crime officers on the ground, most of whom these days are undertaking prompt and rigorous investigations – but somewhere up the chain of command a decision appears to have been made to keep these serious crimes under wraps. Why is that?
I don’t understand the rationale at all. Certainly, in the early stages of an investigation it often pays for details to be withheld so as not to compromise searches etc. But sixteen months after the crime is discovered? It doesn’t make sense, and all it does is undermine public confidence.
I’d also like to know why a General Licence restriction hasn’t been imposed on Dava Moor. I understand from conversations with locals that somebody other than the landowner may be responsible for the ‘sporting management’ of Dava Moor. I’ve been told who that is by a number of people but have been unable to verify it so I’m not publishing it here. Nevertheless, at least two General Licence restrictions have previously been applied on landholdings that were ‘managed’ by someone other than the landowner so that shouldn’t be a barrier to imposing a restriction in this case.
And this isn’t the only illegal poisoning incident that Police Scotland are withholding from the public…more shortly.
UPDATE 6th December 2022: General Licence restriction to be considered on grouse moor where poisoned red kite and bait found (here)
UPDATE 2nd January 2023: Raven poisoned with banned chemicals – Police Scotland withhold information (here)
UPDATE 17th January 2023: Police Scotland confirm red kite found poisoned on grouse moor had been killed with banned pesticide (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 