The Scottish Government has confirmed an outbreak of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI, H5N1) near Kirriemuir, in Angus.
The infected premises were declared at 20.15hrs last night (10 Jan 2025) at Over Ascreavie House, Kingoldrum, Kirriemuir, DD8 5HA.
A 3km Protection Zone and a 10km Surveillance Zone around the infected premises is now in force, meaning various measures are now in place to restrict the spread of this highly contagious disease.
Here’s the official declaration and details of the restrictions in place:
This is the second outbreak of highly pathogenic bird flu in this area in recent years – last time the infected premises was a pheasant and duck-rearing game farm (see here).
This time the infected premises does not appear to be a commercial poultry or gamebird breeding facility – it’s an ordinary farmhouse with a very small hen house and locals tell me there is absolutely no gamebird breeding, rearing, releasing or shooting at these premises.
The restrictions in place in the Protection Zone and Surveillance Zone do not allow the release of any gamebirds, but given it’s almost the end of the shooting season for pheasant and RLPs (1st Feb) nobody should be releasing anymore at this time of year anyway, so no problems there.
However, the restrictions do not prevent gamebird shooting from taking place within the two zoned areas. I’m told that the area is infested with vast numbers of pheasants and red-legged partridges that have been released on shooting estates around Kirriemuir, and which roam around roads and the countryside unchecked.
If shooting now takes place inside a so-called protected zone, there’s a high likelihood that already-infected pheasants and partridges will be flying around the area even more as they’re chased towards the waiting guns, spreading a highly contagious disease to other wildlife. Then there’s the distribution and consumption of potentially-infected gamebird carcasses outside of the zoned areas…
In December 2024, long-delayed recommendations by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) for restrictions to be placed on the use of lead ammunition in the UK were finally published.
Used shotgun cartridges. Photo by Ruth Tingay
A press release issued by the HSE at the time of publication stated that under the new proposals the use of lead shot for live quarry shooting and target shooting would be prohibited.
Dr Richard Daniels, HSE’s Director of Chemicals Regulation Division was quoted:
“Following a comprehensive analysis of the evidence, we propose new restrictions to protect wildlife, particularly wildfowl and birds of prey, from lead poisoning. They would prevent an estimated 7,000 tonnes of lead entering the environment each year.
Golden eagles are particularly susceptible to lead poisoning. Photo by Pete Walkden
“The final agency opinion follows significant responses to two public consultations. We worked through nearly 11,000 responses – dwarfing the recent exercise in the EU.
“This detailed work, carried out under our UK REACH obligations, sets out the necessary balance we have struck to protect the environment and minimise disruption to those who shoot.
“Currently, the risks of lead shot to the wider environment are not adequately controlled. While there are already legally binding measures in place to protect Britain’s wildlife in designated wetlands from the use of lead shot, our analysis has demonstrated the need for further restrictions.
“People will still be able to continue to shoot, but we are proposing that for some outdoor uses in the future, alternatives to lead ammunition would need to be used.”
For those who want to read the detailed proposals, here’s the document:
This issue has dragged on for far too long in the UK (e.g. see here) but now the recommendations have been published, the Governments in England, Wales and Scotland have a limited time period to respond.
A consortium of wildlife and environmental organisations has now written an open letter to the Secretary of State at DEFRA and his colleagues in the devolved Governments, urging them to use this opportunity to finally bring an end to the use of toxic lead ammunition, removing this pollutant from our environment and protecting the health of wildlife and human populations alike. Here’s the letter:
The same campaigners have also set up an e-action that provides an opportunity for you to contact Minister Steve Reed MP at DEFRA, urging him to implement a swift and full ban on the use of lead ammunition. If you’d like to participate (it only takes a couple of minutes), please click here.
For blog readers in Scotland I’d encourage you to email Minister Gillian Martin MSP, the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy (contact details here).
For blog readers in Wales, I’d encourage you to email Minister Huw Irranca-Davies MS, Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs (and also Deputy First Minister), whose contact details are here.
Don’t be under any illusion that the shooting industry will be rolling over and taking this lying down. They won’t. They’ll be lobbying hard to introduce further delays and to minimise the impacts of the proposed restrictions. It’s what they’ve been doing for years (e.g. here), whilst simultaneously claiming to be undertaking a five-year so-called ‘voluntary transition’ to using non-lead ammunition but failing miserably (see here), and failing to comply with current regulations on using lead ammunition in sensitive environments in England (here) and Scotland (here).
It’s important that Ministers hear from a wider section of society than those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Please do make use of the e-action and/or email Ministers in Scotland and Wales. For blog readers with a special interest in birds of prey, this article and the linked scientific paper from researchers at the University of Cambridge should provide all the motivation you need.
To make sure the DEFRA Secretary of State meets the legal requirements for responding to the HSE recommendations within three months of receiving them, lawyers representing conservation campaign group Wild Justice have written to him with the intention of holding him to that deadline. You can read the letter here.
UPDATE 18 March 2025: UK Governments miss deadline for responding to recommendations for restrictions on use of toxic lead ammunition (here)
Last week I wrote a blog about three separate proposals to release White-tailed Eagles in Cumbria, Wales, Severn Estuary and Exmoor National Park in a strategic attempt to bolster and connect the current populations in Scotland, Ireland, Northern Ireland and southern England (see here).
A journalist from The Times has picked up on that blog and an article was published yesterday in TheSunday Times featuring quotes from the National Farmers Union (NFU), who, predictably, do not support the proposals.
The article is behind a paywall so I’ve reproduced it below:
The white-tailed eagle was persecuted to extinction in the British Isles by gamekeepers, farmers and collectors over several centuries, culminating in the last known wild bird being shot dead in 1918.
But now the nation’s largest bird of prey could once again become a common sight thanks to a new set of rewilding schemes across England and Wales.
The birds, also known as sea eagles, were first reintroduced to Scotland in the Seventies by conservationists, and a similar effort was started on the Isle of Wight in 2019. Until then, the last recorded breeding pair in southern England was in 1780.
Now these small populations are set to be bolstered and connected by a growing number of separate reintroduction projects planned in Cumbria, Wales, the Severn Estuary and Exmoor.
But the reintroduction of the birds, which are legally protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, has caused a backlash from farming groups and landowners, who claim they could harm their livestock, primarily lambs, and the environmental schemes they already carrying out.
They also want compensation schemes in place should their livestock start falling prey to the fourth largest eagle in the world.
The Welsh farmers union told The Times it does not support efforts to reintroduce the white-tailed eagle, known as the “flying barn door” thanks to its two-metre wingspan.
Hedd Pugh, the NFU Cymru rural affairs board chairman, said there are “no longer any truly wild areas in Wales”, with all the countryside being “a managed landscape — created, shaped and maintained by farmers over generations”.
“There is a real concern that any reintroduction of this species would cause risk to animal health and welfare and have an impact on livestock production, with newborn lambs particularly at risk,” he said.
“There is also the unknown effect the white-tailed eagle could have on other birds, wildlife and protected species.”
Pugh said that NFU Cymru believes species recovery efforts “should firstly focus on supporting species that are already present in Wales before reintroduction is considered.”
After their reintroduction in Scotland 50 years ago, there are now there are an estimated 150 breeding pairs in the country.
Juvenile white-tailed sea eagles can roam 200km beyond their nest site and when settled, the its hunting territory can be up to 70 sq km.
The eagle is found in dozens of European countries, with no substantial recorded problems relating to livestock attacks, but farmers in Scotland have consistently said their lambs are being killed by the reintroduced species.
The Scottish government launched its Sea Eagle Management Scheme in 2015, which gives money to affected farmers, in acknowledgment that lambs are being taken.
A research paper published at the end of 2023, analysing more than 11,000 food fragments found in sea eagle nests, found lamb accounted for 6 per cent of prey items. However, some nests in the study contained more than 30 per cent lamb remains.
Victoria Vyvyan, the president of the Country Land and Business Association, acknowledged reintroducing species can be beneficial but said “it must be backed by clear research and plans to manage risks like predation, otherwise it risks livestock and livelihoods”.
“It’s crucial to listen to rural communities, address their concerns, and offer fair compensation for any losses,” she said. “Conservation must protect the environment without harming those who rely on it for a living.”
The NFU said reintroductions can play a role in delivering nature recovery but highlighted “concerns about the adverse impacts a reintroduction could have”.
Richard Bramley, NFU environment forum chair, has called on the government to develop and implement a framework “which outlines the process it will follow when managing species reintroductions in England to help minimise impact, risks and any unintended consequences”.
“We also ask that where it is shown there will be an impact that this is properly funded,” he said.
In 2019, Natural England granted a licence to release about 60 birds on the Isle of Wight as part of a reintroduction project led by Forestry England and the Roy Dennis Wildlife Foundation.
The foundation is now considering releasing up to 20 eagles in Exmoor national park over a three year period. The park said it has been doing “a lot of liaison with local landowners and shoots regarding white-tailed eagles already visiting Exmoor”.
The Eagle Reintroduction Wales project is also looking into the feasibility of bringing the eagle back to southeast Wales and the Severn Estuary.
The Cumbrian white-tailed eagle project is exploring the possibility of bringing the birds back to the southern part of Cumbria. The University of Cumbria, Cumbria Wildlife Trust, the Lifescape Project, RSPB, the Wildland Research Institute and the Lake District national park authority want to see their return, after the last recorded white-tailed eagle breeding attempt was near Haweswater in 1787.
Research has already been undertaken to assess prey availability, habitat suitability and a population viability assessment has been completed.
The team is now carrying out a social feasibility study and has launched a questionnaire to evaluate the public’s attitudes and views on a potential reintroduction.
ENDS
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that this newspaper only published quotes from those who hold what seem to be ‘anti-eagle’ views – where are the quotes from conservationists with opposing views, or farmers from southern England who have direct experience with the reintroduced WTEs from the Isle of Wight?
And although I’m pleased that journalists from The Times are using this blog as a material source, I’m less impressed that large chunks of my research/writing have been plagiarised and passed off as the journalist’s own work. It’s not a difficult or onerous task to give credit to the original source, e.g. with a simple link.
As for the concerns raised by the NFU and Country Land & Business Association about the proposed releases of White-tailed Eagles – a quick look again at that map showing the widespread dispersal of satellite-tracked WTEs that were released on the Isle of Wight indicates that the eagles are on their way, with or without more releases, and in some cases are already there (Exmoor National Park), although not yet breeding as far as I’m aware.
Satellite tracking data up to Jan 2024 of WTEs released in southern England. Copyright Tim Mackrill / Roy Dennis Wildlife Foundation
This map also raises another issue. One of the requirements to justify the translocation of a species is that the species in question shouldn’t be able to get there of its own accord, e.g. through natural expansion of the population.
Given the dispersal capabilities of those WTEs on the coast of southern England, and of the expanding WTE population in Argyll in Scotland, it seems to me it’s quite likely that WTEs will reach these proposed release areas of their own accord sooner rather than later. Sure, translocations would speed things up, but given the proximity of the proposed release areas to where WTEs are already established, I do wonder whether it’d be a good use of valuable funding, as much as I’d like to see WTEs in more places.
Given the academic credentials of all those involved in each of the three release proposals, I don’t doubt that they’ll be giving this careful consideration.
In October 2024, prominent falconer and eagle breeder Andrew Knowles-Brown was found guilty at Lanark Sheriff Court of multiple offences relating to the welfare of approx 90 eagles and some parrots at his breeding facility, the Scottish Eagle Centre at Elvanfoot, near Biggar (see here).
Knowles-Brown was due to be sentenced in November 2024 but I’ve learned that sentencing has been further delayed until June 2025. His lawyer apparently told the court that Knowles-Brown was continuing to scale down his facility, having already transferred 30 eagles (I don’t know to where) and was improving the size of the remaining aviaries.
It’s an interesting situation. When Knowles-Brown was convicted in October 2024, the Sheriff was reportedly considering whether to disqualify him from keeping birds. However, if suitable homes couldn’t be found for all the eagles then it would be unlikely that disqualification would occur, because who would then take care of his birds?
It looks to me like the sentencing delay is probably in the interests of those remaining eagles – with a sentencing decision hanging over his head, Knowles-Brown may be more likely to make improvements for those remaining eagles and that work will undoubtedly be monitored/reported back to the court in June and may be considered as mitigation during sentencing.
If sentencing hadn’t been delayed, and the court had simply imposed a financial penalty at the November hearing, Knowles-Brown may not have had any incentive to make improvements for the welfare of those remaining eagles (bearing in mind that he’d pleaded not guilty to all charges during the trial).
Yes, Knowles-Brown deserves to be punished for his offences but I’d argue that the welfare of those eagles is a more urgent issue and perhaps that’s what the Sheriff had in mind when deciding to delay sentencing for seven months.
Reading the description of the squalid conditions in which the eagles had been kept by Knowles-Brown (here), I’m pleased that work is underway to improve their environment. I also hope that sentencing, when it comes, reflects the seriousness of the suffering he inflicted on those birds.
UPDATE 15 October 2025: Prominent falconer Andrew Knowles-Brown fined almost £14,000 for ‘shocking’ animal cruelty (here)
A few weeks ago just before Xmas, Natural England published an update on the fates of three brood meddled satellite-tracked hen harriers: one that had been found dead in north Devon on 5th March 2024 (it died of natural causes) and two that had both vanished within a week of each other from a winter roost site in the North Pennines in December 2022 and whose gunshot-riddled corpses were later found in April and June 2023 (see here).
An illegally killed hen harrier. Photo by Ruth Tingay
Both of these shot hen harriers were found in the North Pennines National Landscape (previously known as an AONB, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and the North Pennines NL was quick to highlight these ongoing crimes by posting a statement on its website the following day.
The Director of the North Pennines NL, Chris Woodley-Stewart, has long been proactively involved in raising awareness about raptor persecution in the area (e.g. see here) and he’s quoted in the North Pennines NL statement as follows:
“It has taken some time to come to light and given that the bodies were on the ground for months before being found, the precise cause of death is uncertain. However, the two birds were found with lead shot in them, near to a North Pennines roost site.
“Whatever the conclusion about the explicit cause of death, the shotgun pellets tell an unequivocal story of illegality. Someone shot these birds with the intent of ending their lives; why else do it? This, regardless of the ultimate cause of death, is evidence of ongoing illegal raptor persecution in the North Pennines.
“This has to stop. We will continue to work with others to raise awareness and support practical action where we can. We’re asking, as always, for anyone with information about any incidents of raptor persecution, to come forward using the confidential hotline“.
The confidential hotline Chris mentioned is the RSPB’s Raptor Crime Hotline, Tel: 0300 999 0101, for sensitive information specifically relating to the illegal targeting of birds of prey.
Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for Natural England to provide updates / post mortem results on four other satellite-tagged hen harriers that were found dead during the first eight months of 2024, and all four of them in Northumberland:
Hen harrier ‘Susie’, female, Tag ID 201122. Last known transmission 12 February 2024, Northumberland. Found dead. Site confidential. In NE’s April 2024 update, Susie was listed as, ‘recovered, awaiting post mortem‘. In NE’s August 2024 update her listing says, ‘Ongoing police investigation, final transmission location temporarily withheld at police request‘. You might remember ‘Susie’ – she’s the hen harrier whose chicks were brutally stamped on and crushed to death in their nest on a grouse moor in Whernside in the Yorkshire Dales National Park, in June 2022 (here).
Hen harrier ‘Edna’, female, Tag ID 161143a. Last known transmission 7 June 2024, Northumberland. ‘Recovered, awaiting post mortem‘.
Hen harrier, female, Tag ID 254843. Last known transmission 29 July 2024, Northumberland. ‘Recovered, awaiting post mortem‘.
Hen harrier, male, Tag ID 254839. Last known transmission 5 August 2024, Northumberland. ‘Recovered, awaiting post mortem‘.
Natural England last updated its online database of satellite-tagged hen harriers in August 2024. That was five months ago, so who knows how many more may have ‘disappeared’ or been found illegally killed since then?
We know of at least one more killed, as revealed exclusively by Channel 4 News in October 2024 when it published covert footage filmed by the RSPB of three gamekeepers on an undisclosed grouse moor in northern England discussing the shooting of an untagged hen harrier and casually chatting to one another about other protected species they’d shot that same afternoon (see here). The police haven’t released any information about a subsequent investigation.
My current running tally of hen harriers that have either been illegally killed or have ‘disappeared’ in suspicious circumstances, most of them on or close to grouse moors, since 2018 stands at 130 birds and this list doesn’t include any of the four Natural England-tagged hen harriers listed above because their causes of death have not yet been revealed.
Various separate projects are gaining traction to release White-tailed Eagles (WTE) in Cumbria, Wales, Severn Estuary, and Exmoor National Park in a strategic attempt to bolster and connect the current populations in Scotland, Ireland, Northern Ireland and southern England.
EXMOOR NATIONAL PARK
The Roy Dennis Wildlife Foundation, responsible for the successful reintroduction of WTEs to southern England, is now considering small-scale releases in other areas to help restore the former population. The Foundation’s first proposed location is Exmoor National Park in Somerset/Devon.
This area was identified as an important location for WTEs as tracking data from the reintroduced eagles on the Isle of Wight show it’s somewhat of an eagle hotspot, with at least seven individuals making regular visits.
Satellite tracking data up to Jan 2024 of WTEs released in southern England. Copyright Tim Mackrill / Roy Dennis Wildlife Foundation
The Roy Dennis Wildlife Foundation and Forestry England is partnering with the Exmoor National Park Authority (ENPA) with a view to releasing up to 20 WTEs over a three year period.
A press release from ENPA says, “Over the last few years we have been doing a lot of liaison with local landowners and shoots regarding white-tailed eagles already visiting Exmoor“.
I’ll bet they have! Exmoor is heaving with pheasant and partridge shoots, including several run by, shall we say, ‘interesting’ sporting agents. An earlier plan to release Hen Harriers on Exmoor was met with resistance by local shoots because they feared it would ‘lead to increased scrutiny of legal activities‘(!) (see here).
The ENPA is currently running a ‘public perception survey’ to find out people’s views on the proposed release of WTEs. The online survey is open to everyone, but especially those who live and work within Exmoor NP and those who visit. If you’d like to participate, the survey is here.
WALES and the SEVERN ESTUARY
A different project is planning to release White-tailed eagles back into Wales and to the Severn Estuary after several years of careful research and consultation.
White-tailed Eagles were formerly distributed across Wales but haven’t bred there for over 150 years since being wiped out by persecution (see here and here).
The Eagle Reintroduction Wales (ERW) Project has been undertaking research for quite a few years (e.g. here) and is now working in partnership with the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, Gwent Wildlife Trust and the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust on actively planning for a WTE reintroduction in southeast Wales and the wider Severn Estuary.
The ERW Project has also launched a public opinion survey to find out people’s views on the release of WTEs. Again, the survey is open to everyone but especially those who live and/or work in the region and the wider Bristol Channel area. If you’d like to participate, the survey is here.
CUMBRIA
The Cumbrian White-tailed Eagle Project is exploring the possibility of bringing WTEs back to the southern part of Cumbria. This is a consortium of organisations, including the University of Cumbria, Cumbria Wildlife Trust, The Lifescape Project, RSPB, the Wildland Research Institute and the Lake District National Park Authority.
The last recorded WTE breeding attempt was near Haweswater in 1787.
Research has already been undertaken to assess prey availability, habitat suitability and a population viability assessment has been completed.
The team is now undertaking a social feasibility study and has launched a questionnaire to evaluate the public’s attitudes and views on a potential WTE release. The questionnaire is aimed at individuals living in Cumbria and the surrounding areas. If you’d like to participate, the questionnaire is here.
UPDATE 6th January 2025: Predictable backlash from NFU to proposed releases of White-tailed Eagles (here)
UPDATE 23 October 2025: Should White-tailed Eagles be reintroduced to Cumbria? Another questionnaire seeks your views (here)
The University of Edinburgh is seeking applications for a fully-funded PhD scholarship (4 years) on the subject of The Impacts of Avian Influenza and Toxicants in Scottish Raptors.
SUMMARY
This project will investigate how HPAI outbreaks and rodenticide exposure are affecting the health of Scottish raptor populations, to inform future surveillance approaches and conservation strategy.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) viruses have caused disease outbreaks in domestic poultry, wild birds and occasionally wild mammals on multiple continents for several decades. Since 2021, new strains have spread globally causing an unprecedented number of outbreaks and affecting a broader range of wild bird and mammal species. In the UK, the most prominent impacts have been on waterbirds (seabirds and geese), with visible mass mortality events. Numerous other species including raptors have also been affected, but we currently have limited understanding of HPAI virus prevalence, pathogenicity and immunity in raptor populations.
Rodenticide use is widespread on farms in Scotland and exposure has been documented in a range of non-target wildlife species including raptors. Most studies have investigated lethal effects of rodenticide exposure, but little is known about the sub-lethal effects of these anticoagulant toxins. Long-term, sub-lethal exposure could impact on health and immunity, potentially influencing susceptibility to infectious agents including avian influenza viruses. In addition, raptors are exposed to lead and other environmental contaminants, which could also be impacting their health.
Raptor populations in Scotland are monitored through the Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme. These data are already informing our understanding of the population-level impacts of HPAI: aside from the deaths of adult birds of a range of species, most notably buzzards (Buteo buteo), the virus appears to have contributed to poor breeding success in some iconic species such as Scotland’s two eagle species, white-tailed sea eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla) and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos). Raptor species of conservation concern in Scotland include kestrels (Falco tinnunculus), for which there has been a notable population decline in recent years. Prey preference in this species suggest that exposure to rodenticides could be a contributing factor to this decline.
This project will investigate the exposure of selected free-living raptor populations to HPAI, rodenticides and potentially other environmental contaminants and how this is impacting their health at an individual and population level. A range of species justify research focus based on their prey preference, likelihood of exposure to these potential threats, and/or conservation interest, which include the buzzard, peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), kestrel, eagles and/or owls. There is scope for the student to choose the focal species according to their interest. Potential research questions include:
What proportion of the target population has evidence of historical exposure to HPAI virus? Therefore, what can we infer about the development and length of immunity to HPAI viruses in these species? Is it possible to deduce risk factors for infection?
What is the prevalence and degree of exposure of raptors to rodenticides? Is it possible to deduce impacts on fitness or disease susceptibility resulting from sub-clinical exposure?
Can we link epidemiological data to population monitoring data to further understand impacts from HPAI and/or rodenticides on the selected Scottish raptor populations?
METHODS
The project will work closely with Scottish Raptor Study Groups and the Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme to support the collection of samples from selected raptor species including live birds and cadavers. Some archived samples collected from golden eagles are also available for study. Laboratory investigations will include molecular, serological and toxicological techniques to investigate disease status and exposure. Demographic data will be accessed through the Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme and will be analysed alongside the disease data.
Year 1: Training in data management, laboratory and necropsy techniques, statistical modelling and Home Office Personal Licence course. Review of current research and establishing a working relationship with the Scottish Raptor Study Group network and other collaborators.
Year 2: Field work to allow sample collection and initial analysis of samples to validate techniques.
Year 3: Continuation of field work and sample collection. Processing of samples and analysis of outcomes.
TRAINING
A comprehensive training programme will be provided comprising both specialist scientific training and generic transferable and professional skills. The successful applicant will receive academic support from wildlife veterinarians and others with expertise in quantitative ecology, ornithology, epidemiology, laboratory and necropsy techniques. They will be provided with training in data management, analysis and statistical modelling. Specialised skills training will include raptor handling and blood sampling. Laboratory training will include the processing of samples for serology, toxicology and PCR for viral detection. They will have the opportunity to interact with a range of research scientists and policy advisors involved in the field of avian influenza surveillance. Additionally, there will be an opportunity to engage with the activities of the CASE partner, NatureScot, to support their awareness of policy and regulatory activities.
CANDIDATE REQUIREMENTS
A masters-level qualification in a relevant field and a veterinary degree are preferred, although candidates with a 2:1 or equivalent degree in a biological science subject will be considered. Field experience working with wild birds, and good laboratory / data analysis skills would be advantageous.
APPLICATION CLOSING DATE
Monday 6 January 2025 by 12.00hrs.
For further information & details of how to apply, see here.
On 24 November 2024 South Yorkshire Police issued a press release outlining a search warrant that had been executed on 21 November 2024, leading to an arrest, as part of a wider, coordinated police investigation into the taking, possessing and trading of wild birds’ eggs (see here).
A few days later, Essex Police published a statement relating to a similar raid, resulting in the seizure of more eggs and another arrest (see here).
This morning, an article in The Guardian has provided more information about the scale of this international police operation, with coordinated raids also taking place in Scotland, Wales and Gloucester, as well as overseas.
These UK raids were part of Operation Pulka. They began in Norway in June 2023 resulting in 16 arrests and the seizure of 50,000 eggs. More raids followed in Australia with the seizure of up to 3,500 eggs.
The National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) says that intelligence suggests this is a single, international crime network and says it is the largest of its kind in the UK in terms of the number of eggs and the scale of the network.
Work is ongoing to count and identify the seized eggs.
Something a bit different from raptor persecution today, Chris Packham and Megan McCubbin are out with the Northants Hunt Sabs this morning, following the Cottesmore Hunt, LIVE on YouTube now:
The following is a guest blog by someone who wishes to remain anonymous, although I know their identity.
STOBO HOPE – DID GWCT ‘ADVICE’ HELP AVOID AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ON THE DESTRUCTION OF BLACK GROUSE HABITAT?
Herbicide damage at Stobo Hope, July 2024
Regular readers may be familiar with Stobo Hope, a large area of heather moorland with wildlife including golden eagles and the second largest black grouse lek in the Scottish Borders. Wild Justice helped fund a successful judicial review by the Stobo Residents Action Group (see here) to try and save this habitat from a giant Sitka spruce plantation. The Scottish Government conceded the petition for judicial review in September 2024 before going to court, cancelling the taxpayer funded £2 million contract after realising that vast areas (potentially up to 400 hectares) had been blanket sprayed with herbicide (see here), in August 2023.
It strongly seems to me that government body Scottish Forestry, True North Real Asset Partners (managing the Stobo scheme and the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund in Guernsey) and forestry agents Pryor and Rickett Silviculture were all desperate to avoid an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which was successfully ‘screened out’ in January 2024 before the contract was awarded in February 2024.
Scottish Forestry will apparently determine again if an EIA is required, claiming they will take into account ‘all other new relevant information’ (see here). At the moment all work at Stobo has been stopped by court order so any work is unlawful. The Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund (based in a tax haven) has now lodged a petition for judicial review with the Court of Session in Edinburgh (December 2024) to try and cancel the enforcement notice by Scottish Forestry (see here).
It turns out that the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) were ‘advising’ Pryor and Rickett Silviculture (see here) and True North Real Asset Partners (see here), on how to ‘improve the suitability of the proposed planting area for black grouse’, despite the RSPB, reputable ecologists and NatureScot explaining that black grouse would leave due to the forestry scheme.
Scottish Forestry appear to have relied on recommendations (that were subsequently partially implemented) by the GWCT to help conclude that black grouse would not be significantly affected by the scheme so an EIA could be avoided. If an EIA was required, it would require a much more rigorous assessment of the ecological impacts of the proposal and require further public consultation which probably would have resulted in the scheme being no longer viable for the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund.
GWCT report, January 2022
Pryor and Rickett Silviculture were seemingly keen to follow up the GWCT’s advice on predator control, so applied to NatureScot for a fox hunting licence with nineteen dogs, but this was refused. The intended fox hunting was supposedly to reduce black grouse predation (see here), but seemed to be more for sporting than conservation purposes. NatureScot explained that there was no evidence of long-term benefit from the proposed fox hunting. As with the RSPB’s prediction of lek extinction at Stobo, NatureScot stated black grouse ‘tend to leave’ plantations of the kind proposed at Stobo:
How Scottish Forestry makes questionable claims to avoid EIAs
Virtually all woodland creation schemes in Scotland avoid an EIA, with just 4 EIAs for 729 ‘conifer option’ screening applications since 2015, according to a FoI response in March 2023 (see here). This appears to be due to forestry managers implausibly claiming that no significant negative environmental impacts will result from an environmentally destructive forestry scheme.
If a significant impact is said to result for woodland creation proposals above a certain size, an EIA is typically needed. Scottish Forestry simply repeats its contracted ecologist’s claims in its ‘screening opinion’ to determine no EIA is required prior to awarding a forestry contract. As a result, tens of thousands of hectares of priority wildlife habitats outside protected sites across Scotland are being damaged or destroyed by commercial forestry. These priority habitats and species are those that Scottish Ministers consider to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation in Scotland. Under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (see here), all public bodies in Scotland have a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their responsibilities. Scottish Forestry appear to be either unaware or negligent in its failure to deliver this duty.
At Stobo, ecologists Mabbett and Associates, now called Arthian Ltd (see here) in its ‘EIA update letter’ (January 2024) claimed the scheme ‘will not have a significant impact’:
Scottish Forestry used this statement to justify their decision to approve the scheme without an EIA and award a £2 million grant for a giant, mostly Sitka spruce plantation of nearly seven square kilometres at Stobo, claiming this scheme was ‘not likely to cause a significant negative environmental effect to black grouse’:
Scottish Forestry repeated this claim for golden eagles (Stobo is a significant area for this species) and for priority habitats such as upland heathland, purple moor grass and rush pasture and numerous other features of nature conservation value in its EIA ‘screening opinion’. These habitats host priority species such as the small pearl-bordered fritillary butterfly, hen harrier, cuckoo, reed bunting and red grouse. Scottish Forestry also claimed that it was unlikely there would be significant negative environmental impacts from the cumulative effects of neighbouring proposed or completed woodland creation schemes, resulting in fourteen square kilometres of contiguous moorland being fragmented by nearly ten square kilometres of predominantly commercial coniferous forestry.
Map of the proposed woodland
For the Stobo plantation, of the planted area, 72% is Sitka spruce, with a further 10% of commercial Scots pine and Douglas fir, so commercial coniferous forestry amounts to 82% of the planted area. The map below does not show three new plantations to the north, west, south or a proposed plantation to the east, creating a giant spruce plantation across what was previously contiguous moorland.
Supposed final planting plan for Stobo. Blue indicates Sitka spruce, green Douglas fir and orange commercial Scots pine. Native broadleaves are indicated by brown while light grey indicates open areas.
Scottish Forestry claimed there would be 246.4 hectares of open ground within 1.5 km of the lek, but omitted to mention that this remaining open ground would be heavily fragmented by 463.6 hectares of trees. Furthermore, much of this open area within 1.5km is sub-optimal habitat on exposed hilltops and ridges far from the lek and mostly unplantable anyway.
Extract from Scottish Forestry’s ‘screening opinion’ dated 18 January 2024
Black grouse need large areas of contiguous moorland – typically bog, dry dwarf shrub heath, marshy and acid grasslands. A 2014 report (No. 741) commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage (see here) – now NatureScot – found that in the Southern Uplands only 5% of moorland patches less than ten square kilometres (1,000 hectares) were occupied by black grouse:
The approximate location of the Stobo estate is circled red below, showing its relative isolation to other leks, several of which have since become extinct in the last ten years:
Map from Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 741 (2014). Stobo in red circle.
The ‘Black Grouse Habitat Management Area’ for Stobo
The forestry scheme applicants proposed a ‘Black Grouse Habitat Management Area’ within 1.5km of the lek to supposedly ‘mitigate’ the effect of planting nearly seven square kilometres of moorland. The stated open area within this habitat management area is only 84 hectares.
The GWCT stated in its January 2022 report for the forestry applicants that ‘the planting will likely have a significant impact on the visual landscape, land use and ground nesting birds’ and the planning process would ‘recommend measures to mitigate against any impacts of significance’:
The GWCT then stated later in the report that ‘the inclusion of low-density mixed broadleaves and areas of open ground within the site are unlikely to sufficiently limit the impacts of the planting plan on wading birds or black grouse’, then suggesting a ‘comprehensive predator control programme as part of any mitigation measures’:
A later report by the GWCT (March 2023) suggests that efforts had been made to increase the open area within 1.5km of the lek, recommending that 40% open ground should be retained ‘within the vicinity of a lek site’:
The final open area within 1.5 km of the lek could be around 35%, based on the 246.4 hectares in Scottish Forestry’s screening opinion, but much of this area is relatively unsuitable due to fragmentation and being on exposed ridges. The RSPB explains to the forestry agents (red text below) that the GWCT’s recommendation of 40% open ground applies to whole plantations, not just the ‘habitat management area’:
Another report (No. 545) commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage and published in 2013 (see here), investigating habitat use by black grouse in Scotland, states:
The findings in this report (and other papers) suggest that schemes such as at Stobo will be unviable for black grouse. Areas around leks were on average, two-thirds moorland and the report suggests ‘a lekking group will likely require a continuous moorland area adjacent to forest habitats, that is at least five square kilometres’ (i.e. at least 500 hectares). At Stobo, Scottish Forestry has ignored both the large area of moorland required for an individual lekking group and the cumulative impacts of multiple woodland creation schemes. The 2014 Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 741 refers to ‘little consideration for landscape-scale conservation’:
The same report provides recommendations for conservation measures in Southern Scotland, suggesting that heather moorlands with leks should be ‘adequately protected from any future significant change in land use’:
This report also points out that ‘predator management in isolation may not prevent further declines without the provision and maintenance of suitable habitats’:
Herbicide treated moorland drained for Sitka spruce planting, Stobo Hope.
Did the GWCT advice influence Scottish Forestry into avoiding an EIA?
It appears that Scottish Forestry relied on specious mitigation measures such as a negligible reduction in planted area, predator control and a ‘Black Grouse Habitat Management Area’, to claim that the Stobo scheme was ‘not likely to cause a significant negative effect to black grouse’, thus avoiding an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The decision by Scottish Forestry to not have an EIA would of course, seem to have huge financial benefits for the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund, as the hundreds of hectares of moorland that the Stobo lek needed could now instead be planted with Sitka spruce. Furthermore, Scottish Forestry incorrectly claimed the cumulative impacts of several forestry schemes were taken into account, despite research suggesting habitat connectivity with other large moorland areas was required for long-term viability of black grouse metapopulations.
Herbicide treated moorland, planted with Sitka spruce, Stobo Hope.
Did GWCT staff ignore its own research to help forestry managers and Scottish Foresty avoid an EIA?
The two Scottish Natural Heritage Reports (Nos 545 and 741) referenced in this blog showing woodland schemes like that at Stobo would be unviable for black grouse, were both authored by the GWCT. Two of the authors of these reports, Dave Baines and Phil Warren, are widely acknowledged as leading experts on black grouse with over 60 years of combined experience, but it is unclear if they were invited to advise on the Stobo proposals which were authored by the GWCT Advisor, Scotland. After several email exchanges between the GWCT and Pryor and Rickett Silviculture, the GWCT Advisor, Scotland eventually concluded in May 2023 that ‘I believe you now have a considered design that goes as far as practical in terms of accommodating for black grouse’.
This is far from a glowing endorsement of the proposals or indeed any kind of acknowledgement that there would be no significant impacts on black grouse.
Although some of the SNH reports’ content may be biased in favour of shooting interests, they do appear to demonstrate general habitat needs and the extent of these habitats required for black grouse.
Why did Scottish Forestry choose to ignore the RSPB’s prediction that lek extinction would result from the scheme?
The RSPB also stated there was a failure to assess the impact of the loss of habitat and nesting sites through afforestation, explaining that the forestry agents in their ‘woodland operational plan’ incorrectly asserted that the RSPB’s issues with the scheme had been resolved.
Heather moorland destroyed by herbicide, Stobo Hope. Picture courtesy of Ted Leeming photography (Copyright protected)
Harry Humble, CEO of True North Real Asset Partners, was probably very pleased with the GWCT’s advice, claiming in the Scotsman (see here) that ‘more than 140ha of the scheme has been designed specifically to favour black grouse, with an enhanced mix of species and open space provision in line with best practice derived from decades of research’.
Why did the GWCT appear not to tell Pryor and Rickett Silviculture and True North Real Asset Partners that its own research over many years showed the proposed Stobo scheme would likely cause black grouse lek extinction, instead of saying: ‘Ibelieve you now have a considered design that goes as far as practical in terms of accommodating for black grouse’?
Another exercise in ‘Greenwashing’ by Scottish Forestry?
Whoever invested in the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund must have been very pleased that Scottish Forestry decided to ignore the RSPB and seemingly disregard readily available, published black grouse research, such as that by the GWCT, commissioned by what is now NatureScot, demonstrating black grouse disappear from areas planted for commercial coniferous forestry. Hundreds of hectares of spruce at Stobo and on neighbouring land was in part permitted by Scottish Forestry under the false premise that the Stobo woodland creation scheme was ‘not likely to cause a significant negative environmental effect to black grouse’. This incorrect claim by Scottish Forestry and similarly incorrect claims relating to impacts on other wildlife and important habitats for many other woodland creation sites must certainly have helped financial gains through land values, carbon credits and funds in offshore tax havens, but sets a terrible precedent for our disappearing moorland landscapes.
Raptor Persecution UK 