Author: RaptorPersecutionUK

Claire Baker’s parliamentary questions answered

Claire Baker MSP 2Last month, Claire Baker MSP, Scottish Labour’s Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs & the Environment, asked some pointed parliamentary questions about the on-going issue of raptor persecution in Scotland (see here), as did Liam McArthur MSP (see here).

Answers to Liam McArthur’s questions were due yesterday. So far, only two of the four have been answered. We’re waiting for responses to the last two before we blog about them.

Claire Baker’s three questions have been answered, two by Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse and one by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill. Unfortunately there’s nothing we haven’t already heard, over and over and over again:

Question S4W-20654: Claire Baker, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 08/04/2014.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it plans to take in response to the illegal killing of birds of prey in addition to its consultation on the powers of the Scottish SPCA.

Answered by Paul Wheelhouse (08/05/2014):

The Scottish Government takes the view that the detection and prosecution of offenders is the best response to the illegal killing of birds of prey. To that end we will continue to work with Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to build and strengthen the enforcement effort in this area of the law. We will also work with other members of the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime to raise awareness of the serious consequences of wildlife crime and the damaging effects on Scotland’s reputation, environment and economy.

We aim to work with government and law enforcement partners to explore further options to detect and remove from the environment the dangerous poisons used to kill native wildlife. Officials are exploring options to build on an existing private sector chargeable pesticides disposal scheme (‘Project RCD’).

Additional measures to protect raptors were announced in July 2013:

Scottish Natural Heritage to restrict the use of general licences where they judge raptor persecution has taken place (there is now an enabling paragraph in the new General Licence for 2014).

A review of penalties for wildlife crime offences, which will report before the end of 2014.

A commitment from the Lord Advocate to encourage the full range of investigative techniques by the police against raptor crime.

The Scottish Government will continue to seek the full implementation and effectiveness of these measures.

Question S4W-20655: Claire Baker, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 08/04/2014.

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the Minister for Environment and Climate Change’s comment in his letter to the chief executive of Scottish Land & Estates dated 26 February 2014 [which we revealed in an FOI here] that “despite all our efforts, there remains an element of sporting managers and owners who continue to flout the law and defy public opinion”, whether it will conduct a review of the licensing and other arrangements for regulating game bird shooting in other countries, with a view to implementing stronger management and regulation.

Answered by Paul Wheelhouse (06/05/2014):

The Scottish Government announced a package of measures in July 2013. These were a review of the penalties for wildlife crime, a restriction on the use of general licences and encouragement for the police to use the full range of investigative techniques at their disposal to deal with wildlife crime. We also introduced the vicarious liability provisions in the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act in 2012. The Scottish Government remains of the view that the measures have the capacity to help prevent, deter and detect wildlife crime. However, the measures must be given time to be fully implemented and for them to have an effect.

Nevertheless, we have been clear that if it becomes apparent that further measures are required we will take whatever action we consider necessary, including examining whether stronger management and regulation of game bird shooting is appropriate.

Question S4W-20656: Claire Baker, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 08/04/2014.

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions the (a) Cabinet Secretary for Justice and (b) Minister for Environment and Climate Change has had with the Chief Constable regarding resources and training for wildlife crime officers.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (07/05/2014):

There have been no discussions between the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Chief Constable regarding resources and training for wildlife crime officers.

The resources deployed and the training of wildlife crime officers are matters solely for the Chief Constable. It is not appropriate for Scottish Ministers to seek to intervene on operational policing matters.

I can advise however that since Police Scotland came into being on 1 April 2013, there have been significant changes to the structure and training for wildlife crime officers.

The strategic lead for wildlife crime which sits in the Specialist Crime Division is held by the Assistant Chief Constable. A Detective Chief Superintendent holds the portfolio lead and the post provides essential direction and governance around strategic issues relating to Wildlife Crime prevention and investigation.

A full time national Wildlife Crime Coordinator at Detective Sergeant level provides engagement with national issues relating to coordination, policy, performance and training, and supports the Detective Chief Superintendent.

In each of the 14 territorial divisions there are wildlife crime liaison officers who are supported by a Superintendent (or above). Wildlife crime officer posts can be either full or part-time and deal with crime prevention and investigation when required for operational policing issues.

It is important to highlight that the investigation of wildlife crime is not the exclusive preserve of dedicated staff, and a variety of investigative and intelligence resources and tactics are brought to bear on such matters, from local and national policing.

Case against gamekeeper George Mutch: part 8

Criminal proceedings continued today with hearing #9 in the case against Scottish gamekeeper George Mutch, of Kildrummy Estate, Aberdeenshire.

We understand that Mutch is pleading not guilty to a suite of charges for offences alleged to have taken place in August 2012. The charges come under Section 5 (subsection 1B) of the Wildlife & Countryside Act (relating to the use of a trap for the purpose of taking or killing wild birds) and Section 1 (subsection 1A) of the W&CA (relating to the killing, injuring or taking of wild birds).

Today’s hearing was supposed to be the last intermediate diet before the trial, which had been due to start on 28th May 2014. However, at today’s hearing, a further intermediate diet was announced (24th September 2014!!!) with a new trial date set for 22nd October 2014. Marvellous.

If the trial does go ahead in October 2014 (and it may not, depending on the outcome of the Sept intermediate diet), it will have been over two years since the alleged offences took place.

Here’s a chronology of the hearing dates in this case:

11th September 2013 (case opened)

2nd October 2013 (hearing #2)

30th October 2013 (hearing #3)

27th November 2013 (hearing #4)

17th December 2013 (hearing #5)

17th March 2014 (hearing #6)

2nd April 2014 (hearing #7)

16th April 2014 (hearing #8)

13th May 2014 (hearing #9)

Previous blogs on this case here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Disappointing radio debate on wildlife crime in Scotland

bbc radio scotlandThere was a radio debate yesterday about zero tolerance of wildlife crime in Scotland. The debate was hosted by the Good Morning Scotland programme and for those who missed it, here is the transcript:

Presenter: This week the Scottish Wildlife Trust called for zero tolerance when it comes to wildlife crime. It says that the current punishments aren’t enough to deter people. In recent months 22 raptors have been found dead, 12 of them have been confirmed as poisoned. So what would zero tolerance look like and do we need it? Joined now by Tim Baynes from the Scottish Moorland Group, part of the Scottish Land and Estates, and Mike Flynn, Chief Superintendent of the Scottish SPCA.

Mike Flynn, first of all, you approve of the idea of zero tolerance?

Mike Flynn: Well I don’t think anybody disapproves of it, I mean even if you’re talking about Scottish Land & Estates, they’ve roundly come out saying that all these kind of acts have got to stop and what we really need is some of the people that are linked with those involved to come forward so they can be dealt with.

Presenter: What would it look like though, Mike Flynn?

Mike Flynn: Well, what it’d look like is we’d have a lot more wildlife going about, you wouldn’t be getting organisations like the landowners and gamekeepers being instantly castigated every time some of these incidents happen and you can’t just point the finger at any organisation, this could be down to single individuals and they’ve got to be stopped.

Presenter: Well Tim Baynes from the Scottish Moorland Group, what’s wrong with enforcing the law?

Tim Baynes: Well absolutely nothing at all and I agree with what Mike says there. I think that zero tolerance is one of these quite easy phrases to use but in fact there is already zero tolerance for wildlife crime; zero tolerance within the law and the range of measures that are there to deal with it, zero tolerance within the organisations like ours and the Scottish Gamekeepers, who as Mike says are frequently castigated for this. So it is there, I mean the law governing wildlife crime is tough to start with in the sense that anyone committing a crime could have up to six years in jail, they could be fined for up to £5,000, sorry six months in jail, someone was jailed for poaching recently for 8 months, there is also a law called vicarious liability which deals with an employer or a manager of someone who is convicted, they can face the same penalties. Recently the Minister for the Environment has announced various other new measures, some of them aimed particularly at the land management sector.

Presenter: Well Mike Flynn, some people argue that actually what you should do is have a sort of absolute liability for landowners so that if a raptor or something is found on land the owner could be held responsible and perhaps even fined or sent to jail. Would you agree?

Mike Flynn: Well, Tim’s just said there is an offence now of vicarious liability but you can’t really point the finger at someone if they have absolutely no knowledge of what’s happening. If you’re looking at the crime that Tim just mentioned, poaching, people do not allow poaching on their land but it goes on quite often so you couldn’t blame the landowner for that kind of thing happening.

Presenter: Tim Baynes, it has been suggested, what’s wrong with the idea of, it would certainly focus minds wouldn’t it?

Tim Baynes: Well there is already absolute liability if someone is responsible for a crime on their land and they are absolutely liable. What the problem is that there are a whole lot of different circumstances and it seems to be very difficult for the police ever to find sufficient evidence to secure convictions, and you know, there’s a whole range of things that can go on on the ground that may not be quite so obvious to people looking from outside.

Presenter: What are you suggesting though, if an eagle or a buzzard or something is found on somebody’s moor that, you know, it’s been brought there by somebody else, it’s surely the responsibility of those whose ground it is?

Tim Baynes: Well yes it is, well there are a number of things that have happened and if you look back at some of the recent incidents where, you know, the police, very extensive investigations have gone on and yet they’ve not been able to work out exactly what happened. I mean I think the one, the extraordinary one at Conon Bridge recently as an example, I mean there’s a very big police investigation there but they haven’t managed to work out what happened there…

Presenter: Well we should point out that’s on farmland rather than estates…”

Tim Baynes: Yes but I think the same sort of accusations have been levelled at the landowners there at which quite possibly this incident is nothing to do with certainly anything deliberate that’s been done by the people responsible for managing that land. There are a whole range of different things that can happen and we have to be extremely careful about trying to apportion blame, you know it’s very easy to do but the police have to be given time to conduct these investigations, work out what really happened and then deal with the causes.

Presenter: Mike Flynn, on some readings the conservation movement has actually been extraordinarily successful hasn’t it, in actually bringing back lots of birds of prey, there’s far more around now than it used to be 10 or 20 years ago?

Mike Flynn: Yeah and a lot of that’s down to public awareness, I mean there is far greater awareness now that wildlife crime is illegal; the problem that we’ve got is that there’s so little enforcement and you’ve got to remember, a lot of these wildlife crimes happen in very remote areas, where there’s nobody’s actually around and about to actually witness these things and you do have a kind of anomaly in the law where one part of the Wildlife & Countryside Act a person can be prosecuted on the evidence of one person, and that was kind of brought in because like osprey eggs being stolen, it might be just one hill walker that sees somebody going up the tree, so there is legislation there, what it is is that there’s a lack of enforcement.

Presenter: Mike Flynn from the Scottish SPCA and Tim Baynes from the Scottish Moorland Group, thank you to both.

This debate highlights the importance of having an interviewer who knows the right questions to ask. In our opinion, this one didn’t. Why didn’t he challenge Mike Flynn’s assertion that you can’t blame an organisation when all the official statistics demonstrate very clearly that the majority of these incidents are taking place on land managed for game-shooting? Why didn’t he challenge the poaching example – you can hardly place poaching (a so-called wildlife crime that isn’t actually a wildlife crime at all – it’s based on the principle of ‘theft’) alongside raptor persecution when one ‘crime’ (poaching) is ‘against’ the landowner’s interests and the other crime (raptor persecution) is very much in the landowner’s interest?

Why didn’t he challenge Tim Baynes’ assertion that there already is zero tolerance for wildlife crime in certain organisations when several estates well-known as raptor blackspots, and their employees, are members of those very organisations or provide funding to those organisations?

Why didn’t he challenge Tim Baynes’ assertion that the incident at Conon Bridge was ‘possibly nothing to do with anything deliberate done by the people responsible for managing that land’? He doesn’t know that – the police haven’t yet released information about their investigation.

Why didn’t he challenge Tim Baynes’ assertion that the law governing wildlife crime is tough – how many of those convicted of raptor persecution have ever received the maximum fine for their crimes or received any jail sentence? None of them!

Having said that, we know that there is currently a review underway to assess wildlife crime penalties (a review instigated by the Environment Minister last July). He said in parliament earlier this week that he expected the review group to report their findings by December this year. The group’s remit is this:

“To examine and report on how wildlife crime in Scotland is dealt with by the criminal courts, with particular reference to the range of penalties available and whether these are sufficient for the purposes of deterrence and whether they are commensurate with the damage to ecosystems that may be caused by wildlife crime”.

Interestingly, the identities of the group’s members were revealed this week:

The group’s Chair is Professor Mark Poustie, an esteemed legal academic from the University of Strathclyde.

Detective Chief Superintendent Robbie Allan from Police Scotland.

Hugh Dignon (senior civil servant) from the Scottish Government.

An un-named representative from the Crown Office.

Jeremy Greenwood, former Director of the British Trust for Ornithology.

Hugh Campbell-Adamson, owner of Stracathro Estates.

An interesting line-up. A well-qualified Chair and senior representatives from Police Scotland and the Scottish Government. We’ll reserve judgement on the COPFS rep until we find out who it is. The former Director of the BTO is presumably there to provide scientific expertise about the population-level impact of raptor persecution. But what on earth is the owner of a landed estate doing on this panel when the panel’s remit is to make recommendations for penalties for wildlife crimes, some of which will have been carried out by, er, estate owners?!!!!

Goshawk found dead in suspicious circumstances on Chatsworth Estate

Goshawk Derbyshire spring trap April 2014The RSPB has posted a £1,000 reward for information that leads to a conviction following the discovery of a dead goshawk found in suspicious circumstances on Chatsworth Estate in Derbyshire.

The dead female bird was found on the estate by a member of the public on 2nd April. A post-mortem revealed the bird had two broken legs, and that both breaks were in the same place – injuries that are consistent with being caught in a spring trap.

The bird had been fitted with a leg ring, showing it had hatched in 2003 in the Peak District National Park, 15km to the north of Chatsworth.

Derbyshire Constabulary and the RSPB are appealing for information.

For full details, including quotes from the RSPB, Derbyshire Constabulary and a Chatsworth Estate representative, see the article on the Derbyshire Constabulary website here.

Peregrine shot in Devon as this year’s tally continues to rise

Perg shot seaton Devon May 2014A critically-injured peregrine was found at Seaton Beach in Devon on Bank Holiday Monday. The bird, soaked and unable to fly, was found by members of the public.

It was taken to a vets but had to be euthanized. Its injuries were consistent with a gunshot wound.

The police quickly issued an appeal for information (see here) and local birder Steve Waite has written about the incident on his blog (see here).

So here we are, another month, another reported raptor persecution crime to add to the year’s growing death toll:

Jan 2014: Shot buzzard, Norfolk.

Jan 2014: Dead bird (species unknown) & poisoned bait, South Lanarkshire.

Feb 2014: Shot buzzard, North Yorkshire.

Feb 2014: Shot buzzard, Norfolk.

Feb 2014: Shot sparrowhawk, Norfolk.

Feb 2014: Spring-trapped buzzard, West Yorkshire.

Feb 2014: Poisoned peregrine, South Lanarkshire.

Mar 2014: Shot peregrine, Dorset.

Mar-April 2014: Poisoned red kites (x 16) & buzzards (x 6), Ross-shire.

April 2014: Man arrested for alleged attempted raptor trapping, Aberdeenshire.

April 2014: Shot buzzard, North Yorkshire.

April 2014: Shot red kite, Northamptonshire.

April 2014: White-tailed eagle ‘disappears’ in suspicious circumstances, Aberdeenshire.

April 2014: Peregrine ‘illegally killed’, Stirlingshire.

May 2014: Shot peregrine, Devon.

Meanwhile, over in Northern Ireland a wildlife crime summit has learned that 90 raptors have been found poisoned there since 2006 – see here.

What we learned from today’s Parliamentary debate on raptor persecution

ScottishParliamentChamberEarlier today there was a debate in the Scottish Parliamentary Chamber about eradicating raptor persecution from Scotland. The debate stemmed from a motion lodged by Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse (see here for details of that motion and several suggested amendments).

We very much welcome the Environment Minister’s action of bringing this topic to the attention of Parliament, although given the recent foul catalogue of current crimes against raptors, and the enormous public response to these on-going crimes, he had to be seen to be doing something.

The debate lasted for an hour and twenty minutes, beginning with an opening address from the Minister during which he expressed his “anger, revulsion and utter frustration” that these crimes continue in 21st Century Scotland. He ran through a list of previous measures brought in since 2007, some of which are still to be fully implemented. He said he understood the calls from some quarters for further measures to be introduced now, but insisted that more time was needed to allow these measures to take effect. Here’s one quote that we’ll be reminding him of in due course when we see the next inevitable incident, and the next, and the next:

“If and when we judge it necessary, I am committed to taking further action. If that involves licensing certain types of businesses, then we will do so“.

He’s made this commitment before, on many occasions, and there are only so many times that he can make such a commitment before he will be forced to actually follow up his words with action.

During his opening speech he was questioned by Liam McArthur MSP about the alleged police response to the poisoned peregrine incident at Leadhills (see here for info on that incident). The Minister’s response:

“We do believe proper procedures were followed“.

Really? How interesting. We look forward to reading the full written response that is now due about this incident following the emails that were sent to him by RPS blog readers in early April. [Incidentally, we haven’t yet received a response – if anyone else has, we’d be interested in reading it]. We’ll also be paying close attention to his written answers to the parliamentary questions that were raised about this issue by Claire Baker MSP and Liam McArthur MSP.

One significant point he made was that proceedings have commenced in the first vicarious liability case at Stranraer Sheriff Court. We believe this case relates to the Glasserton & Physgill Estates buzzard poisoning case in June last year, where gamekeeper and SGA member Peter Bell was convicted of several poisoning offences (see here). The news that this vicarious liability prosecution is going ahead is excellent news and we await the outcome with great interest.

There were a number of other MSPs who spoke during this debate, with many of them being strongly supportive of the consultation to increase the SSPCA’s investigatory powers, and a number of them expressing concerns about the ability of Police Scotland to prioritise wildlife crime.  Dennis Robertson MSP demonstrated a refreshingly sceptical view of the SGA and their claimed attempts to eradicate raptor persecution.

Talking of the SGA, their parliamentary cheerleader, Jamie McGrigor MSP, gave a rousing but wholly irrelevant speech about the SGA’s Year of the Wader project, and mentioned the SGA’s briefing document for today’s debate in which they apparently call for an investigation into the cause of wildlife crime, i.e. the old ‘too many’ raptors routine. Perhaps they mis-read the title of today’s debate as ‘Eradicating Raptors from Scotland’. At one point, Mr McGrigor announced:

“Wildlife crime is being perpetrated by a very few individuals, rather than any sector of the Scottish countryside“.

Oh dear. He clearly needs to go back and look at the statistics of where the majority of raptor persecution incidents take place [on land managed for game-shooting] and the occupation/interests of the majority of those convicted for these crimes [gamekeepers].

Mr McGrigor also gave a surprising commentary on the possible cause of the Ross-shire Massacre, in which he suggested that the “hand-fed” (?!!) red kites at Tollie Red Kite feeding station may have been fed contaminated food. He did admit this was based purely on rumour but we were surprised that such speculation on a live police investigation would be allowed during a parliamentary debate.

The Environment Minister ended the debate by saying that he was looking into a poisons amnesty. In our view, a total waste of time and effort – it’s been done before with little, if any, effect. Besides, some of these poisons (e.g. Carbofuran) have been banned since 2001 – that’s 13 years ago – how many more chances are these criminals going to be given to comply with the law? The one saving grace of an amnesty is the potential for anyone found to be in possession of poisons AFTER the amnesty has passed would then face a more severe penalty. That’d be good, if only we could believe that a severe penalty would be handed down. The Minister did mention that there is currently an academic review being undertaken to review the penalties for wildlife crimes and the authors of that review are expected to report in December this year.

Video footage of the debate is available here for about a month [starts at 1:29; ends at 2:49].

The official transcript of the debate can be read here: Minutes of debate: eradicating raptor persecution 6 May 2014

Debate in Scottish Parliament today: eradicating raptor persecution from Scotland

ScottishParliamentChamberA debate will be held in Chamber today under the heading: Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland.

The debate will be shown live on Holyrood TV (link below) and for those who can’t watch it live, we’ll add the video archive in due course.

The debate stems from a Parliamentary Motion submitted by Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse last week:

Motion S4M-09916: Paul Wheelhouse, South Scotland, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 01/05/2014

Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland

That the Parliament recognises the impact of wildlife crime in Scotland and the potential strain that this places on Scotland’s reputation; welcomes the Scottish Government’s determination to tackle wildlife crime in Scotland; supports the work of the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime; welcomes the introduction of vicarious liability in wildlife crime in 2011 and the announcement in July 2013 of the review of wildlife crime penalties, the introduction of restrictions on general licences and the enforcement work being taken forward by Police Scotland; unreservedly condemns the appalling poisoning incident in Ross-shire that has killed at least 20 red kites and buzzards; recognises that these birds are a critical part of Scotland’s biodiversity and a key element in the growing wildlife tourism sector; expresses concern about the very worrying disappearance of the first sea eagle chick born from the reintroduced sea eagles on the east coast; considers that an update on the fight against wildlife crime is now timely, and welcomes agencies redoubling efforts to work together to protect Scotland’s remarkable wildlife.

The Presiding Officer has accepted the following amendment to this motion from Claire Baker MSP, who is smart enough to recognise that congratulatory back-slapping isn’t enough and that more action needs to be taken:

Motion S4M-09916.3: Claire Baker, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 02/05/2014

Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland

As an amendment to motion S4M-09916 in the name of Paul Wheelhouse (Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland), leave out from first “welcomes” to “Police Scotland” and insert “believes that the commitment to tackle wildlife crime is shared across the Parliament; acknowledges the work undertaken by the Scottish Government and its relevant bodies and partners in working to tackle wildlife crime, including the review of wildlife crime penalties and the consultation for increased powers for the Scottish SPCA; however believes that the latest wildlife crimes show the urgent need for further action in Scotland; calls on the Scottish Government to conduct a study of licensing and game bird legislation in other countries with a view to working with other parties to review wildlife crime legislation in Scotland”.

There were two other amendments lodged. One came from Liam McArthur MSP calling for more measures to enable a robust pursuit of raptor-killing criminals:

Motion S4M-09916.2: Liam McArthur, Orkney Islands, Scottish Liberal Democrats, Date Lodged: 02/05/2014

Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland

As an amendment to motion S4M-09916 in the name of Paul Wheelhouse (Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland), insert at end “, and believes that Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service should work to ensure that this increased effort will lead to more resources for wildlife crime officers and specialist prosecutors to allow for cases of raptor persecution to be more robustly pursued“.

The second amendment was much more bizarre and came from Jamie McGrigor MSP, a long-time supporter of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association:

Motion S4M-09916.1: Jamie McGrigor, Highlands and Islands, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 02/05/2014

Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland

As an amendment to motion S4M-09916 in the name of Paul Wheelhouse (Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland), insert at end “, and further welcomes the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association’s conservation project, the Year of the Wader, and NFU Scotland’s recently published Sea Eagle Action Plan“.

It’s not clear to us how either of these items are relevant to a debate on eradicating raptor persecution in Scotland.

To watch today’s live debate on Holyrood TV click here. [Session opens at 2pm but there are a number of items to get through before the wildlife crime debate begins].

UPDATE 23:00hrs: Click here to read our comments about today’s debate and to find the link to the archive footage.

Increased calls for jail sentences for raptor-killing criminals

RSPB Scotland and the Scottish Wildlife Trust are calling on the authorities to start imposing jail sentences on those convicted of killing birds of prey, and also to start using the option of prosecutions under vicarious liability legislation.

A prison term as a sentencing option is already in place – no new laws are required, just a willingness from the authorities to start using existing legislation to its full effect. To date, nobody has ever received a jail term for the persecution of raptors. The new measures for vicarious liability in relation to raptor crime came in to force on 1st January 2012 – over two years later and we’re still waiting to see the first case.

The Scotsman is running an article on this today (see here), and there was also an interesting radio debate on BBC Radio Scotland between RSPB Scotland’s Head of Investigations, Ian Thomson, and Scottish Land & Estates’ Moorland Group Director, Tim Baynes. The debate can be listened to here for another 7 days (starts at 50:36 and runs to 58:11).

Talking of vicarious liability, we’ll shortly be blogging about a presentation on this very subject that was given to the annual Police Wildlife Crime conference last week. The presenter was none other than David McKie, the defence lawyer for the Scottish Gamekeeper’s Association. An interesting choice of speaker, we thought, and we’ll be examining what he, and several other speakers, including the Environment Minister, had to say in due course.

Tomorrow there will be a debate in the Scottish Parliament called: Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland. More on this later…

 

Hen Harrier Day: 10th August 2014

Hen-Harrier-Day-2014cThe concept of Hen Harrier Day was inspired last year by Alan Tilmouth (you can read about it on his blog, here). And it was an inspired move – basically for conservationists to take back the so-called ‘Glorious 12th’ (the opening of the grouse- shooting season) and celebrate this beautiful bird that has virtually been ‘cleansed’ from the grouse moors of northern England (and most grouse moors in Scotland, too).

Last year, Hen Harrier Day was celebrated by hundreds of people using the #HenHarrier hash tag on Twitter and other social media. This year, the campaign is going to be even more visible with a series of planned public protests in the northern uplands.

The newly-formed campaign group Birders Against Wildlife Crime (BAWC – of whom Alan Tilmouth is a founding member) has joined forces with Mark Avery to organise four legal, peaceful and media-friendly public protests in four counties where grouse-shooting is a dominant force: Derbyshire, Yorkshire, Cumbria and Northumberland.

The date for the protests has been set as Sunday 10th August 2014. This date was chosen in preference to the inglorious 12th (which falls on a Tues this year) to enable more people to attend.

According to Mark Avery, so far over 200 people have emailed to say they’d like to be involved. This is a fantastic opportunity to make a lot of noise about a subject that has received relatively little media attention in relation to the severity of the situation. The Hen Harrier has virtually been wiped out as a breeding species from England, and is in serious decline in large areas of Scotland (predominantly those areas used for driven grouse shooting).

Enough is enough and it’s time to fight back.

For further information, check out the Hen Harrier Day campaign on the BAWC website here and read today’s BAWC blog with some background info about the campaign here

To express an interest in taking part and to receive updates about the protests, please email Mark Avery: mark@markavery.info

Ross-shire Massacre: frustration grows at lack of information

RK4The investigation into the mass poisoning of 22 birds of prey near Conon Bridge, Ross-shire in March is apparently continuing, although the police have been reluctant to provide much information since the well-publicised raids they carried out at various properties almost a month ago. The only news to emerge has been the ever-increasing death toll, currently standing at 16 red kites and 6 buzzards.

They’ve said that 12 of the dead birds have been confirmed as poisoned, but that information was given weeks ago – they still haven’t confirmed whether the other 10 birds were poisoned.

And nor have they released information about the poison(s) used to kill these birds. The purpose of withholding this information is not known – the police will probably say it’s a tactical approach, but the poisoner will know what was used and the poison itself will have been hidden away weeks ago. Even if a stash is now found, the chances of linking it directly to the Conon Bridge poisonings are zero because of the level of evidence required to secure a conviction. For example, unless the poisoner was seen placing the poisoned baits, and the birds were seen eating those poisoned baits, a strong evidential link cannot be established. The only possible conviction would be for a ‘possession’ offence, unless the poisoner actually admits to placing the poisoned baits, and that is hardly likely.

What’s frustrating is that here, yet again, we have an incident where deadly toxic poison(s) has been set out in the countryside, putting at risk any animal and human that comes in to contact with it, and yet the police don’t think the general public should be told what the poison is.

This lack of public information has even been picked up by a global listserv used by the health community. The following appeared on the listserv the day after the BBC announced that the current death toll had reached 22 birds:

“The issue of this many birds of prey or carrion being found dead indeed smacks of a toxin. However, multiple articles all say the birds were poisoned and they are investigating. Their investigation has included DNA testing of meat to determine what type of meat was used. These investigators say they need to get insecticide tests performed, yet not a single article mentioned if that has been done or what the outcome was, or if the test was pending.

While this number of birds being found dead is of concern, and the number of avian deaths seems to be climbing, the lack of testing, and/or the lack of accurate reporting remains of equal or greater concern“.

Meanwhile, dog walkers in the area are now avoiding their usual routes for fear of being exposed to poison, according to an STV report (see here).

Also in this article is another interview with farmer Ewan MacDonald, whose farm properties were searched by police last month. Mr MacDonald continues to call for a ‘working group’ comprising police and local farmers “to find out what has caused this devastation“.

Ironically, at the end of the article is an interview with Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse on the launch of a revised guide to the use of forensics in tackling wildlife crime. This latest edition is a very welcome tool, especially if it helps investigators to preserve crucial forensic evidence from the crime scene. But the irony comes from the statement made by the reporter at the end of the video:

“The message they’re [wildlife groups] getting today is that Scotland is a world leader in using science to bring those responsible [for wildlife crime] to justice“.

Er, no, Scotland is most definitely not a world leader in bringing wildlife criminals to justice, as evidenced by an embarrassing 7.3 conviction rate for raptor crime (see here) and 32 dead or ‘missing’ eagles over an 8-year period with zero prosecutions (see here). Scotland could be a world leader, if policing and enforcement measures matched the skills and expertise of the forensic scientists, but we’re still a long way from being able to claim anything of the sort.

Previous blogs on the Ross-shire Massacre here

Download the new Wildlife Crime Forensics Guide: Wildlife Crime Forensic Guide v2 2014