Author: RaptorPersecutionUK

Last month we blogged about a series of Parliamentary questions relating to wildlife crime that had been lodged by recently elected Scottish Greens MSP Mark Ruskell (see here).

One of those questions was about giving extended powers to the SSPCA:

Question S5W-00030 (Lodged 12/5/2016)

To ask the Scottish Government when it will announce its decision regarding extending the powers of the Scottish SPCA to tackle wildlife crime.

Environment Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham has now responded with this:

A decision on whether to extend the investigatory powers of the Scottish SPCA will be announced in due course.

That’s it. No explanation for the protracted delay (it’s been over five years since the public consultation was first suggested, and twenty months since that public consultation closed) and no time estimate of when this decision might be announced. Just, “in due course“. Marvellous.

A couple of weeks ago we blogged about how Dumfries & Galloway Council had recently given extended powers to the SSPCA to allow them to tackle the illegal puppy farm trade (see here). We argued that if the SSPCA was entrusted with extended powers to tackle serious organised crime, there should be no good reason why they shouldn’t be given extended powers to tackle wildlife crime.

Something else the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment might want to consider is the result of an SSPCA investigation which ended in Edinburgh Sheriff Court yesterday (see here). As a result of a covert surveillance operation, Craig Aitken, 43, pleaded guilty to setting 47 illegal snares, without authorisation, on Seggarsdean Farm in Haddington, East Lothian in January 2015. He was also convicted of stealing some of the SSPCA’s covert cameras, which, unbeknownst to him, had GPS trackers attached which enabled the SSPCA to trace them to Aitken’s home (see here). The evidence against him was so strong that he didn’t contest the charges. Yesterday he was sentenced with a 180 hour Community Payback Order and a six-month Restriction of Liberty Order which requires him to remain at home between the hours of 9pm and 8am. As an aside, someone else with the name Craig Aitken, of the same age, in the same town of Haddington, was convicted in September 2015 for exactly the same offence (setting illegal snares on another farm, caught by an SSPCA covert surveillance operation!) and received a 200-hour Community Service Order (see here). What a coincidence, eh? Those penalties for wildlife crime are really working as a deterrent.

The reason we’ve mentioned this recent wildlife crime conviction is because this case demonstrates a number of things about the ability and competence of the SSPCA to conduct wildlife crime investigations; things that those opposing extended powers for the SSPCA (Police Scotland, gamekeepers, estate owners etc) said the SSPCA couldn’t do.

One of the main objections they gave to the SSPCA receiving extended powers was the SSPCA’s supposed lack of impartiality. It was claimed that because the SSPCA campaigns for a ban on snares, the charity couldn’t possibly remain impartial when investigating wildlife crimes involving snaring offences. Oops! This recent conviction for snaring offences suggests otherwise.

Another objection was that SSPCA Inspectors don’t undergo “the same rigorous training, selection and vetting” as police officers so they shouldn’t be allowed to undertake criminal investigations. Oops! This recent wildlife crime conviction suggests otherwise.

Another objection was that there may be resistance from the public who view these powers as a traditional remit of the police. Oops! We don’t see the public objecting to this latest wildlife crime conviction on the grounds that the SSPCA investigated and Police Scotland didn’t.

Another objection was that the SSPCA is “unequipped” to deal with RIP(S)A regulations (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which puts strict controls on when surveillance operations are permitted and how they are to be conducted. These regulations only apply to public bodies, e.g. police, customs). Oops! This recent wildlife crime conviction, based on the use of covert surveillance (albeit with the landowner’s permission) suggests otherwise.

Isn’t it about time the Scottish Government stops procrastinating over this issue and gives extended powers to the SSPCA to allow them to bring their expertise and proven skills to bear against those who continue to illegally kill birds of prey? This is supposed to be a National Wildlife Crime Priority. Let’s see Scot Gov treat it as such.

Today, new Cabinet Secretary for Land Reform & the Environment, Roseanna Cunningham, will deliver a keynote address at the spring conference of Scottish land owners’ lobby group Scottish Land & Estates (SLE).

According to an amusing article in this morning’s Telegraph, clearly orchestrated by SLE to coincide with this conference, ‘Ministers have been warned they need to re-build trust with Scottish landowners’ who are miffed about the way the Land Reform agenda has been pushed through and are still whining about the reintroduction of sporting rates on their huge multi-million pound shooting estates (see here). The arrogance and sense of entitlement is there for all to see.

Obviously, we have no idea what Roseanna Cunningham will be saying at this conference but we hope that as well as land reform, the issue of raptor persecution will also feature. It’s been five years since she was having to deal with raptor persecution in her former role as Environment Minister and the issue hasn’t gone away. Although, according to SLE, it has.

We’ve been sent a copy of SLE’s Policy Update, an internal document written for SLE members, dated April 2016. Here are some excerpts:

Mountain hares

Although there is no issue over population reduction, it continues to be highly emotive and even a long distance photograph of a cull is enough for the Herald and social media. Meeting arranged with GWCT, SNH, and CNPA [Cairngorms National Park Authority] on 27 April to tighten up joint statement.

So yet again SLE claims ‘there is no issue over population reduction’, even though there isn’t a shred of supportive scientific data to back up this claim. And this is the group that SNH is relying upon to exercise voluntary restraint! In March 2016 we asked SLE to provide evidence that the current mountain hare slaughter was sustainable (see here). No reply.

Raptor persecution maps 2015

A small increase from 18 to 20 recorded incidents, many unrelated to land / sporting management. This issue is dying away statistically and in media interest, but pro-raptor groups in overdrive trying to make new publicity out of it.

So, raptor persecution is acknowledged as a National Wildlife Crime Priority, SLE serves on the PAW Raptor Group, and yet here they are, telling their members that it’s no big deal and it’s just us lot making a big fuss about nothing. They do have a long track record of denial, of course, because it’s in their interest to pretend that everything’s just fine and no further sanctions or legislation is required.

Rather than focus on one year of data (even though those data showed an increase in recorded incidents, not a decline!), SLE would do well to take note of the long-term data trends, all recently published by RSPB Scotland (see here):

A total of 779 birds of prey were confirmed to have been illegally killed during the period 1994-2014, either by poisoning, shooting or trapping. The known victims included 104 red kites, 37 golden eagles, 30 hen harriers, 16 goshawks, 10 white-tailed eagles and 458 buzzards.

In addition to these confirmed victims, a further 171 incidents were documented where poisoned baits and/or non-birds of prey victims were found, including 14 pet cats and 14 pet dogs, and then a further 134 incidents where no victim had been found but clear attempts to target raptors had been uncovered (e.g. illegally-set traps).

Drilling down in to the detail, there’s a useful analysis of land-use type of confirmed poisoning incidents between 2005-2014 (219 incidents). A shocking (or not) 81% of confirmed poisoning incidents during this nine-year period were on land used for game-shooting: 57% on grouse moors and 24% on land managed for lowland pheasant shoots. This tells us a great deal about who is responsible for the vast majority of illegal raptor poisoning. Despite their continued denials and protestations, and their increasingly-desperate attempts to minimise the scale of these crimes (“it’s just a few rogues”, “it’s just a small minority”, “this issue is dying away”), this graphic exposes the criminality at the heart of the game-shooting industry:

And of course, there has also been a recent scientific paper documenting the long-term decline of peregrines on grouse moors in NE Scotland (here), reflecting a problem that is widespread across the Scottish & English uplands (here) and another scientific paper documenting the catastrophic decline of hen harriers on grouse moors in NE Scotland (see here).

A big fuss about nothing, eh? Let’s see if Roseanna Cunningham shares their view. It’s so obvious that with this level of denial, calling for the game shooting industry to self-regulate is utterly futile. If change is going to happen, it will have to be forced upon them.

Petition calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting can be signed HERE

Thanks to the blog reader who sent this.

Click on this link:

http://captiongenerator.com/91045/Hitlers-Grouse-Moor

And here’s the petition to which Mr Hitler is referring; please sign HERE

 

A few days ago a Panorama programme was aired on BBC Scotland about the illegal puppy trade (see here). It showed some pretty horrendous footage that had been secretly filmed at a puppy farm in Northern Ireland and one in the Irish Republic, as well as some undercover surveillance of puppies being brought over on the ferry and sold on to unscrupulous dealers in Scotland. It was harrowing stuff.

So what’s this got to do with raptor persecution? Actually, quite a lot. In a subsequent BBC article (here), it emerged that ferry company Stena Line was taking action to crack down on this illegal trade and was working in partnership with the SSPCA in a multi-agency approach, code-named Operation Delphin.

Nothing unusual about that, but what’s really interesting is that to help facilitate this crack-down, Dumfries & Galloway Council has, this year, conferred additional investigatory powers to the SSPCA which authorises the SSPCA to stop and search suspects’ vehicles and also allows them to seize anything believed to be evidence, including puppies, documentation and mobile phones. These additional powers have been authorised by D&G Council under The Trade in Animals and Related Products (Scotland) Regulations 2012.

All credit to D&G Council for creatively using the full extent of their legislative powers to tackle this disgraceful industry.

What interests us most about this is that the illegal puppy trade is a multi-million pound industry, managed by some pretty hardened criminals, some of whom are involved in serious organised crime. D&G Council had no problem giving additional investigatory powers to the SSPCA to enable them to work, in partnership with other agencies including the police, HMRC and local councils, to address these crimes.

Now, compare the Council’s approach with that of Police Scotland and the organisations involved with game bird shooting in Scotland who all objected, vociferously, to the idea that the SSPCA could be given additional powers to help investigate wildlife crime. Among other things, they claimed that the SSPCA was ‘unaccountable’, that it didn’t have the training and competence to cope with additional powers, that additional powers would amount to ‘quasi-policing’, that ‘only the police should investigate crime’, and that additional powers would ‘destabilise trust’ between PAW partners (see here for more details of these ridiculous objections).

What’s even more fascinating is that the SSPCA isn’t even asking for stop and search powers to help tackle wildlife crime – it’s simply asking for powers that would enable officers to investigate wildlife crimes that don’t involve a live animal in distress. So for example, the additional powers would allow the SSPCA to investigate wildlife crime where the victim is already dead, or where a victim may not be present, e.g. an illegally-set pole trap (see here for further details). Under the current legislation the SSPCA is not permitted to investigate these incidents and must call the police, who may or may not attend depending on who’s available and how busy they might be with other police duties.

So the question is, how come D&G Council has faith in the SSPCA’s investigative abilities to deal with serious organised crime, so much so that additional powers have been granted, but Police Scotland and the game-shooting industry claims the SSPCA is so incapable and untrustworthy that moderate additional powers to tackle wildlife crime (including the illegal persecution of raptors on game-shooting estates) should not be conferred?

Quite revealing isn’t it? Could it be that the game-shooting industry is objecting to additional powers because if the SSPCA is granted those powers, then obviously the chances of the criminals being caught will increase? As for Police Scotland, it’s still quite baffling why they would object. It’s not as though the SSPCA would be taking over the investigation of all wildlife crime – they’d still be working in partnership with the police and the police could still investigate if they had officers available to attend. Could it be that Police Scotland is still objecting because if increased powers were conferred, the SSPCA’s success rate might prove rather embarrassing for Police Scotland?

Hopefully this long, drawn-out fiasco will soon be over, one way or another, now the new Cabinet Secretary for the Environment is in place (here) and increased pressure is being applied by Scottish Greens MSP Mark Ruskell (see here).

Following today’s earlier post about Roseanna Cunningham MSP being appointed the new Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform (here), it appears that the former junior position of Minister for Environment has either been chucked, or has been merged with Roseanna’s new role.

Nicola Sturgeon has announced the appointment of other junior Ministers (see here) and there is no mention of a specific Environment Minister. Although obviously, Roseanna Cunningham, as a Cabinet Secretary, is also technically a Minister.

This news can be viewed in two ways. It could be argued that the loss of a junior Environment Minister position could be detrimental (depending on the effectiveness of that junior Minister, of course!) because it means there’s only one person responsible for the Environment portfolio instead of two. However, it could also be argued that the junior Minister (again, depending on who it was) could quite easily cause the Cabinet Secretary to take their eye off the ball of a particular issue if they thought the junior Minister had things in hand, and that junior Minister could then quite easily ‘dilute’ any progress that otherwise might have been made.

The very good news is, as we suggested earlier, Roseanna Cunningham is experienced, strong and decisive. And although her portfolio has been separated and former responsibilities such as agriculture, fisheries, crofting, and food & drink have now been given to another Cabinet Secretary (Fergus Ewing MSP), her remit is still pretty wide but has added emphasis on the Environment. We have every confidence she’ll rise to the challenge and do a better job on her own than the ineffective team of Aileen McLeod and Richard Lochhead.

We look forward to seeing what she can achieve.

Well this is good news!

In today’s Cabinet reshuffle, Roseanna Cunningham MSP has just been appointed the new Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, following the departure of Richard Lochhead.

Interestingly, the title of this position, and the portfolio remit, has been changed. Roseanna’s responsibilities will be for climate change, flood prevention, water quality, land reform, physical and marine environment, sustainable development, biodiversity, natural heritage, environmental protection, environmental and climate justice, National parks, and Scottish Water.

The other responsibilities previously associated with this post (Rural Scotland, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, aquaculture, food and drink, and crofting) are now the responsibility of newly appointed Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity, Fergus Ewing MSP.

This might not be the best news for those working in conservation within the agricultural sector but it’s very good news for us. It means that Roseanna Cunningham will be able to take a closer interest in environment/wildlife issues than could her predecessor, as well as land reform. She’s definitely seen as left-of-centre of her party and is no friend of the big landed estates, so they won’t be happy with this new appointment.

Roseanna brings a lot of experience to her new role, having formerly been the Environment Minister between 2009-2011. During her time in that role she was responsible for introducing an amendment to the WANE bill for the addition of vicarious liability for estates where raptor persecution was still prevalent (see here) and she also was pretty firm that the Scottish Government would not entertain the idea of introducing licences to kill protected raptors (see here).

It wasn’t all plain sailing though. She was the Minister who rejected an amendment to the WANE bill for increased powers for the SSPCA, although she did temper this by saying that the issue should first go to public consultation. This was procedurally cautious, although in hindsight was a fair move. Little did she or we realise that five years later we’d still be waiting for the Government to act on this issue (see here).

We welcome Roseanna’s appointment and trust she will bring a new level of leadership to the table. However, much will depend on who becomes her junior Minister for the Environment (still to be announced).

UPDATE 6pm: No junior ministerial role for Environment (here).