42 badgers have been found killed (baited, mauled, snared, shot, trapped, dug) on or next to grouse shooting estates between 2018-2022, according to the charity Scottish Badgers.
This figure, considered to be an under-estimate relying on accidental discoveries, was revealed in correspondence to the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee, written by the charity to correct information that had previously been given to the Committee by a representative of BASC (British Association for Shooting & Conservation) during an evidence session on the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Bill in June 2023.
During the third evidence session on 21st June 2023, Rural Affairs Committee member Rachael Hamilton MSP asked the witnesses whether there was evidence linking grouse moor ‘operators’ with the illegal persecution of badgers.
Dr Marnie Lovejoy, Head of Environmental Law Research at BASC told the Committee, “Badgers do not tend to live on grouse moors…They are simply not there“.
The Scottish Badgers charity wasn’t represented at the oral evidence session so it has now written to the Committee to provide expert evidence on this issue.
In its letter addressing the claim made by BASC, Scottish Badgers wrote:
“On the contrary, there is documented evidence that relentless criminal persecution of badgers on grouse moors takes place linked to estate employees and is carried out by the same persons who kill raptors“.
The letter goes on to provide examples, including the recent cases of the sadist gamekeeper employed by Millden Estate in the Angus Glens (currently sanctioned after evidence of raptor persecution) who was jailed for his role in a badger-baiting gang (here), and the gamekeeper employed by Longformacus Estate in the Scottish Borders who was convicted for multiple wildlife crime offences, including the illegal killing of badgers and raptors (here).
You can read the letter from Scottish Badgers to the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee here:
Raptor Persecution UK 
This is no surprise and if you expecting these gamekeepers to come clean and say something like we have got to get rid by any means possible they eat Grouse eggs then it’s time to wake up and smell the coffee .What the government is doing with these culls does not sit well with a large portion of the scientific community does this make any difference? Not a jot “nation of animal lovers” my arse
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Alsere32, there isn’t any Govt-sanctioned badger culling in Scotland.
Maybe there is no government sanctioned cull in Scotland but it is the same govt they know it too that’s why the SNP want independence.
Hear hear….badgers are persecuted all over Britain, largely due to propaganda perpetrated by Gov, DEFRA and farmers and apparently gamekeepers alike…these beautiful harmless creatures are held responsible for every negative thing that ever befalls certain people….it is infantile, pathetic, hugely cruel and totally heartbreaking.
As Ruth says, badgers are not culled in Scotland. There is no TB. The Scottish government is not the same as the UK government. It’s way ahead, as evidenced by the fact this bill is at least going through parliament so there is a chance for progress
there really is no place for snares anywhere in the UK. There is clearly something wrong with someone who thinks its acceptable to make any animal suffer in this way in my opinion. I personally wouldnt let anyone who agrees with snares to ever work with children, animals or the vulnerable.
Absolutely agree , snares are barbaric and anyone who can sanction or set them is inhuman . How can anyone justify the causation of the suffering these vile things incur ?
Xxxxx xxxxx Ross Ewing wrote a v unbiased and clear article in the Scotsman the other day about the virtues of snares and their vital role in keeping our countryside beautiful and full of fluffy little birds.
I’m so glad he explained it all so well. At least those animals caught in snares set by responsible people don’t suffer. Only snares used by naughty people cause suffering
Well done Scottish Badgers, you clearly have your eye on the ball, a well worded letter with the scientific paper authors linked in. Perhaps BASC were just having a bad day and being a little forgetful !, seems more like they do not have a clue about badgers. Lets hope the appropriate persons take notice of your information.
Was it a mistake or an attempt to mislead???
I think it is a subtle attempt to mislead, and it’s good that she was caught out. Using the term “grouse moors” instead of grouse shooting estates or upland estates is probably an attempt to keep the discussion focussed strictly on the prime heather-clad hills and intensive grouse beats only. But it must be borne in mind that most predator control on grouse moors (for the benefit of the grouse shooting), is done throughout the wider estate including fringe habitat of the moor, at forestry edges and on the rough ground / mixed upland grazing adjoining the heather – because this is where wandering predators “come in from’ – being enticed into the moor by what they see is an area abundant in prey and vacant territories. The battle to eliminate the “vermin” in the middle of the grouse moor is relatively easily won, but the keeper(s) are engaged in a constant war to eliminate any new arrivals (crows, young foxes, young buzzards, etc) trying to move in esp during autumn and winter, and need more manpower if one or more of their boundaries is bordered by un-keepered land. The aim is to (a) make the grouse moor clean of all “vermin” then (b) create a buffer around the grouse moor where no predators breed and few make it so far as to even try to… without being nailed first. Badgers are included in this death-wish type calculation if they make homes too close, or start wandering up onto the moor proper with any regularity.
I think you are right. I am aware of a keeper from a grouse moor killing crows in a wood over 5 miles from the moor itself to protect the grouse nests from predation. I suspect this was pushing the terms of the GL to its absolute limit, as what evidence did he have that the birds he killed actually flew onto the moor and predated grouse eggs or chicks? In my mind the keeper should have been prosecuted, unless he could have shown with some certainty that the wild birds that he killed were actually the same birds which came onto the moor. Interestingly the estate in question also featured on the RSPB raptor persecution map.
John – I would report the incident you mention to the police. That almost certainly was illegal.
These are the General Licences predominantly used on shooting estates –
*GL42 to protect livestock and other ‘property’ from serious damage. Grouse are not classed as livestock since they are wild, free roaming birds so this license cannot be used to kill crows to protect grouse. It can, however, be used to protect pheasants when they are in pens and before they are released as wild birds!
*GL40 to conserve wild birds, flora and fauna of conservation concern. Grouse are not wild birds of conservation concern – hence the supposed enthusiasm of shooting estates for conserving lapwing and curlew populations! I would be amazed if a GL40 license could legally be used to kill crows 5 miles away to protect lapwings and curlew. In addition, for a license to be used, reasonable endeavors should first be made using alternative, non lethal methods to prevent crows from predating lapwings and curlews. Those measures include tactics covered on this web site like scarecrows (dummies), gas guns etc etc.
*GL38 to protect game birds and waders and ground nesting birds from stoat predation. The license permits the use of specific spring traps to kill stoat. These traps cannot legally be used to kill crows but they are widely used on grouse moors along waterways and in woodlands where particular measures have to be taken to reduce the risk of non target species being caught in them.
Then, of course, there’s the shooting of ‘foxes’ and ‘rabbits’ – which requires no license.
Lethal control measures are widely used on the outskirts of moors to create buffer zones where encroachment by predators on to the moors is discouraged or prevented.
Small woods on the outskirts of moors creating diversionary outposts for predatory mammals or roosting/perching posts on flight paths for predatory birds are pretty common. These thin copses and spinneys are quite often the sites where stink pits, spring traps and bird traps are placed. For the predatory birds that make it to the moors, portable larsen traps now seem to be the favoured bird trap. Shooting and spring traps are the weapons of choice for mammals.
As for badgers, in my area, gamekeepers used to walk their terriers regularly around a huge badger sett. The sett was abandoned – along with 12 other smaller badger setts – on one estate!
I thought about it at the time, but realised there would probably be zero interest from the police. The keeper would probably claim a defence under the GL40, citing the birds killed as responsible for coming onto the moor and predating wild birds of conservation concern. I believe the police would then probably have to prove with some certainty that the crows shot weren’t responsible for predation of other wild birds on the moor, which would probably be impossible. This would suggest that there would probably be an element of doubt in the prosecution case, and so it would probably be impossible to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the keeper had infringed the terms of the GL?
This incident perhaps indicates a failure within the provisions of General Licences, and opens up a loophole, which can be exploited by those with a mind to do so? Perhaps the GL needs rephrasing so that any lethal control must be carried out over the land where it is alleged the control of certain species is required, and any lethal control away from this land wouldn’t be covered by the GL?
It seems it is hard enough at times to get the police to thoroughly investigate raptor crime, and go toe to toe with those they suspect responsible, so I just can’t imagine them showing any interest in this?
The whole concept of buffer zones around grouse moors is really something which shouldn’t be happening, as there appear to be no safeguards to define how far any buffer zone can extend.
To be honest, I don’t have any real faith in the law to protect wildlife, as it seems any legislation is always carefully crafted to ensure that the interests of those wishing to exploit nature and the environment for financial gain are always maintained.
It will be very interesting to see just how any legislation to licence grouse shooting in Scotland is written, as I suspect there will be loopholes to be exploited, and as we have seen time, and time again conservationists and campaigners will be left disappointed.
From what I can make out, the Badger cull was originally pushed by the shooting fraternity, to farmers. This is not guesswork, as I had impeccable sources. Someone I knew had fallen in with the shooting fraternity, specifically the former head gamekeeper of one of the country’s great stately homes. I just listened, whilst they tried to convince me of various things. One of the major themes, was that Badgers were one of the worst predators of ground nesting birds, on grouse moors. This was before the Conservatives took up the Badger cull cause, and before farmers became obsessed with it. It was obviously from the horse’s mouth so to speak, because they would tell me something and then much later, I would read about it. From what I could grasp, they (the shooting lobby) were hoping Badgers would have their protection removed. However, what I was told, made it clear in no uncertain terms, that shoot managers regarded Badgers as one of the worst predators needing control.
We have very little information, on how these people really think and behave out of sight. From my own personal experience over a long time, they have a much worse attitude than people imagine, and are ultra aware of their need to push a false narrative, to those who they call “bunny-huggers”. By bunny-hugger, they don’t just mean those from an animal rights perspective, but virtually all professional conservationist, ecologists and the like. In fact, virtually everyone who is not a fully paid up member of the shooting fraternity, is in their eyes a bunny-hugger, and needs to be spoonfed lies about how they operate. Any illusions I had about ethical shooters, disappeared a long time ago. Yes, a lot give that impression and are very convincing, but their complete refusal to condemn or accept evidence about widespread illegal raptor persecution, makes it clear that they are not as enlightened as they make out.
Well said, Stephen. Xxxxx xxxxx. I take my hat off to Scottish Badgers. The only way to counter the xxxxx xxxxx is to present sound scientific evidence and show the xxxxx up for what they truly are.
Also, if the BASC was allowed to present its case on badgers, why wasn’t Scottish Badgers afforded the same opportunity?
A interesting comment, which explains much.
The Badger Cull will probably be remembered as a very dark period for British wildlife. I believe the moment the science behind the cull became controversial, then the cull should have immediately ceased as the default position of the badger being protected by law should have taken precedent.
My belief is that the Tory party continued to sanction the cull to ensure their continuing support in the shires from the farming community. Despite all its rhetoric it seems to be a party which can’t really be trusted when it comes to environmental and wildlife matters.
I think I can safely say there will be a lot more than 42 dead badgers in the many stink pits on the Scottish estates and also in England and Wales!! There are always some in our local stink pit!!!
Distraught.Badgers, one of success stories of UK wildlife now being culled year after year for nothing in,addition to this sort of violent persection. Another species being slaughtered to brink of extinction. I despair really.
That is an excellent letter from Scottish Badgers.
I wonder if Finlay Carson – Convenor for the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee and who is a Tory MSP (Galloway and West Dumfries) – will actually forward it to “be published on
the Bill website page, distributed to the members of the Committee and substitutes, and the facts corrected elsewhere as necessary.”?
(Whenever I deal with hostile chairpeople I usually take the precaution of copying such correspondence to all Committee members… )
It appears that Dr Marnie Lovejoy has ‘previous’ for talking pro-shooting claptrap.
See https://wildjustice.org.uk/general-licences/ecological-illiteracy-from-basc/
According to Scottish Badgers (above), the BASC spokesperson claimed “badger sets covered 0.019 per cent per square kilometre in heath and bog” while their survey had “reported a mean of 0.02 badger main sets per square kilometre in heather and bog habitat”
“0.019 per cent” is meaningless as a number. 0.019% of what? To the average innumerate Committee member it might well imply that Badger sett density is one hundred times LESS than what it really is: 0.02 (rounded up?) main setts per square kilometre.
Having checked the report
https://external.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/report.aspx?r=15388&i=131280&c=2506810&s=
Lovejoy was (mis)quoting the Badger survey! (Dr Lovejoy: I am in the privileged position of working at the interface between law and ecological science, so I have some statistics that might help here.) No one at the Committee meeting picked up on the meaningless ‘0.019 per cent’ figure.
These BASC people appear to try anything to mislead. According to them Lovejoy is a lawyer (“Gamekeeping runs through her family and she is a keen beater alongside her two springer spaniels”) But clearly, someone who understands neither basic ecology nor basic arithmetic.
This is murder, no more, no less. The murderers should be prosecuted and the government bring in strong legislation against ALL animal cruelty.
“This is murder, no more, no less.”
No, it is not. Get a grip – you cannot be taken seriously if you equate the killing of babies by Lucy Letby, say, with the killing of Badgers.
[Ed: off topic, Rachel. I’ll be writing about it separately]