Further to the blog I wrote yesterday about the conviction of Gary MacFarlane for the illegal sale of peregrine chicks (here), I’ve just received some more information about this case.
I had written that I wasn’t sure whether or not the case related to the laundering of wild peregrines, although Police Scotland’s press release had alluded to it.
However, I’m now reliably informed that the case against MacFarlane was centred on apparently legitimate captive-bred peregrines and his crimes involved admin offences where he’d entered incorrect details on Article 10 certificates about the paternal genetic lineage of some chicks he was selling, simply because he’d guessed at the identity of the sire, having used semen from a number of males to artificially inseminate the female. His case was NOT related to the laundering of wild peregrines and passing them off as captive-bred birds.
To be honest, the financial consequences of MacFarlane’s admin errors (a fine of £2,100 and the confiscation as proceeds of crime of £5,220 in cash found at his house) seem a bit over the top, especially as the Article 10 system as prescribed by APHA seems ridiculous to say the least.
I won’t go into details because I’m not sure I understand it fully but as a quick summary, APHA has allowed some falcon breeders to enter details on Article 10 certificates of up to 80 individual males as the potential sire of a captive-bred chick. MacFarlane apparently didn’t understand the system and as he’d used semen from six males, he thought he had to indicate on the certificate which one of those males sired the offspring, rather than saying ‘it was one of these six’. He guessed at the identity of the purported sire, got it wrong and has now paid the price. He’s also received an automatic five year ban from keeping Schedule 4 birds so he’s also lost his breeding stock.
The APHA system as it stands is useless, if the idea is to be able to keep track of individual captive-bred birds but then allows breeders to include the details of up to 80 potential sires – it’s bonkers. I understand there is ongoing work between a number of agencies to try and resolve and update the system.
But that’s for discussion elsewhere – it’s not really within the remit of this blog and it’s beyond my area of expertise.
Raptor Persecution UK 
Thanks for the clarification.
Ah…. in the world of oil-rich falconry, maybe they do not like being ‘fobbed off’ with any old semen, when they are paying top dollar. Property theft / forgery brings higher fines than denuding the environment. MacFarlane’s ‘admin’ errors might lead some future wealthy Peregrine owner into making a claim which the DNA then failed to corroborate.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
And to clarify further, The A10 certificate is a certificate allowing commercial use (or other specified uses) of any endangered species, which is an international requirement overseen by CITES (The Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species) which APHA is tasked to implement in the UK.
APHA always made it clear that to ensure accurate compliance, paperwork offenses will be prosecuted, whether they were intentional or as a result of misunderstanding. They can do this because of the clear paperwork trail.
The reason this provision for multiple male parent details is because, using artificial insemination techniques, semen from different males can be used to inseminate any female. This allows the possibility of DNA samples to be taken from all of the potential parents in the event of any suspicion of ‘laundering’ of wild birds. Far from ‘bonkers’ I would say, although up to 80 does seem ridiculously excessive, it’s just an arbitrary number to avoid any possibility of a need to review and revise I guess.
I wrote: Property theft / forgery brings higher fines than denuding the environment.
You have not addressed my point at all.
Just exactly why do “paperwork offenses (sic)” attract fines an order of magnitude greater than illegally killing a wild peregrine, then, if it is not to simply prevent defrauding some rich client?
Your assumption is totally incorrect
” simply prevent defrauding some rich client?”
The article 10 document is issued with the sex, species of parents and breeder name.
It does not show ancestry.
The actual reason for having this information has already been given.
“The article 10 document is issued with the sex, species of parents and breeder name.
It does not show ancestry.”
That isn’t what was reported: “the case against MacFarlane was centred on apparently legitimate captive-bred peregrines and his crimes involved admin offences where he’d entered incorrect details on Article 10 certificates about the paternal genetic lineage of some chicks he was selling, simply because he’d guessed at the identity of the sire”
Immediate parents only.
“Immediate parents only.”
No! From the Government’s website, *each* Article 10 certificate must show:
“For EACH bird’s male and female PARENT you must provide both the:
Article 10 certificate or EU certificate number
closed ring or microchip numbers…”
which means that the *parents* Article 10 certificate numbers must *also* be included, which – by definition – will, in turn, include *their* parents’ Article 10 certificate numbers… and so on, and so on…
YOU wrote “The Article 10 document… does not show ancestry”
Stop trying to mislead us.
“The article 10 document is issued with the sex, species of parents and breeder name.
It does not show ancestry.”
I have just checked: you are quite mistaken.
From: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/endangered-species-application-for-commercial-use/article-10-certificate-for-cites-protected-live-birds-guidance-for-completing-form-fed1012
“For EACH bird’s male and female PARENT you must provide both the:
Article 10 certificate or EU certificate number
closed ring or microchip numbers
If you do not know any of this information, write ‘Unknown’ and tell us why.
If you are a breeder and you do not own the parent birds, or you have purchased or been gifted semen for artificial insemination, then you need to provide:
the source bird’s species, Article 10 number (not a bird registration document number) and closed ring or microchip number… “
understand the need to enforce these rules but I think the monetary penalty would be deterrent enough on a case like this.
The 80 potential parents may be coming from a figure that was designed to cover all species of bird. A large aviary of flocking birds could result in a high number males.
The obvious point relevant to this blog is the penalty given in comparison to offences committed by gamekeepers and others in the shooting fraternity.
A pint on your blog screen design and accessibility.
A grey background and small black text is not at all helpful and will be unusable by sight impaired people.
“The obvious point relevant to this blog is the penalty given in comparison to offences committed by gamekeepers and others in the shooting fraternity.”
Agreed.
“A pint on your blog screen design and accessibility.
A grey background and small black text…”
That is not what I see. You should be able to adjust your own screen to your own requirements….
I leave colour settings as standard and set text to large.
In terms of website accessibility it’s good design practice to have it easy to use as standard for those with ageing or limited vision. Google sets standards for contrast which are way higher than what I am seeing (with difficulty😄)