Last September we wrote an article called ’26 eagles, 6 years, 0 prosecutions’ (see here). We thought it was time to update it and it’s now called: ’27 eagles, 7 years, 0 prosecutions’.
Why update it now? Well mostly in response to Paul Wheelhouse’s comment yesterday that the Scottish Government “has achieved much since 2007” in relation to tackling illegal raptor persecution. Yes, ‘much’ has been achieved in terms of forming new committees and partnerships and having meetings and publishing soundbites, but what has actually been achieved on the ground, where it matters? According to the following list, absolutely bloody nothing.
As previously stated, some of these eagles on this list are just ‘missing’ and may not be dead, although the frequency with which these sat-tagged eagles are going ‘missing’ is indicative of something more sinister, of that there’s no more doubt. It’s also reasonable to point out that there may be (probably will be) a hell of a lot of other eagles that we haven’t included in this list because we just don’t know about them. We only see the tip of a very very large iceberg, as is becoming clearer to everyone by the day.
It’s also worth pointing out that if Scottish Land & Estates and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association had their way, we wouldn’t be able to report on any of these cases because presumably the police are still investigating them all. I can’t for the life of me think why those two organisations would prefer this information was kept secret.
MAY 2006: A dead adult golden eagle was found on the Dinnet & Kinord Estate, near Ballater, Aberdeenshire. Tests revealed it had been poisoned by the illegal pesticide Carbofuran. Grampian Police launched an investigation. Seven years and 2 months later, nobody has been prosecuted.
JUNE 2006: A dead golden eagle was found on Glen Feshie Estate in the Cairngorms. Tests revealed it had been poisoned by the illegal pesticide Carbofuran. Northern Constabulary launched an investigation. Seven years and 1 month later, nobody has been prosecuted.
AUGUST 2007: A dead adult female golden eagle was found on an estate near Peebles in the Borders. She was half of the last known breeding pair of golden eagles in the region. Tests revealed she had been poisoned by the illegal pesticide Carbofuran. Lothian & Borders Police launched an investigation. Five years and 11 months later, nobody has been prosecuted.
AUTUMN 2007: Tayside Police received a detailed tip-off that a young male white-tailed eagle (known as ‘Bird N’) had allegedly been shot on an estate in Angus. The timing and location included in the tip-off coincided with the timing and location of the last-known radio signal of this bird. Five and a half years later, the bird has not been seen again. With no body, an investigation isn’t possible.
MAY 2008: A one year old male white-tailed eagle hatched on Mull in 2007 and known as ‘White G’ was found dead on the Glenquoich Estate, Angus. Tests revealed he had been poisoned by an unusual concoction of pesticides that included Carbofuran, Bendiocarb and Isofenphos. A police search in the area also revealed a poisoned buzzard, a baited mountain hare and 32 pieces of poisoned venison baits placed on top of fenceposts on the neighbouring Glenogil Estate. Laboratory tests revealed the baited mountain hare and the 32 poisoned venison baits contained the same unusual concoction of highly toxic chemicals that had killed the white-tailed eagle, ‘White G’. Five years and 2 months later, nobody has been prosecuted.
JUNE 2009: An adult golden eagle was found dead at Glen Orchy, Argyll, close to the West Highland Way. Tests revealed it had been poisoned by the illegal pesticide Carbofuran. Strathclyde Police launched a multi-agency investigation. Three years and 3 months later, estate employee Tom McKellar pled guilty to possession of Carbofuran stored in premises at Auch Estate, Bridge of Orchy and he was fined £1,200. Nobody has been prosecuted for poisoning the golden eagle.
JULY 2009: A two year old female golden eagle known as ‘Alma’ was found dead on the Millden Estate, Angus. Tests revealed she had been poisoned by the illegal pesticide Carbofuran. Alma was a well-known eagle – born on the Glen Feshie Estate in 2007, she was being satellite-tracked and her movements followed by the general public on the internet. Tayside Police launched an investigation. Four years later, nobody has been prosecuted.
AUGUST 2009: A young white-tailed eagle was found dead on Glenogil Estate, Angus. Tests revealed it had been poisoned by the illegal pesticide Carbofuran. Tayside Police were criticized in the national press for not releasing a press statement about this incident until January 2010. Three years and 11 months later, nobody has been prosecuted.
MAY 2010: Three dead golden eagles were found on or close to Skibo Estate, Sutherland. Tests revealed they had been poisoned; two with Carbofuran and one with Aldicarb. Northern Constabulary launched a multi-agency investigation. One year later (May 2011), Sporting Manager Dean Barr pled guilty to possession of 10.5 kg of Carbofuran stored in premises at Skibo Estate. Three years and 2 months later, nobody has been prosecuted for poisoning the three golden eagles.
JUNE 2010: Leg rings with unique identification numbers that had previously been fitted to the legs of four young golden eagles in nests across Scotland were found in the possession of gamekeeper James Rolfe, during a multi-agency investigation into alleged raptor persecution at Moy Estate, near Inverness. It is not clear how he came to be in possession of the rings. The bodies of the eagles from which the rings had been removed were not found. No further action was taken in relation to the discovery.
JUNE 2010: A golden eagle and a white-tailed eagle were found dead on Farr & Kyllachy Estate, Inverness-shire. Tests revealed they had been poisoned by the illegal pesticide Carbofuran. Northern Constabulary apparently did not search the property until July 2011. Three years and 1 month later, nobody has been prosecuted.
DECEMBER 2010: A decomposing carcass of a white-tailed eagle was found and photographed on Logie (Lochindorb) Estate, Morayshire. It was reported to Northern Constabulary. By the time the police arrived to collect it, the carcass had disappeared. The police said they couldn’t investigate further without the body.
MARCH 2011: The body of a young golden eagle was discovered on North Glenbuchat Estate, Aberdeenshire. Tests revealed it had been poisoned by the illegal pesticide Carbofuran. Grampian Police launched an investigation and raided the property in May 2011. Two years and 4 months later, we are not aware of any pending prosecutions.
APRIL 2011: The body of a white-tailed eagle was found at the base of cliffs on Skye. The person who discovered it (a professional medic) considered it to have been freshly shot with a rifle, decapitated with a sharp implement and thrown from the cliff top. He took photographs and alerted Northern Constabulary and RSPB. There was a delay of two weeks before the now probably decomposed carcass was collected. A post-mortem was inconclusive. This incident was not made public until one year later after a tip off to this blog. Two years and 3 months later, we are not aware of any pending prosecutions.
NOVEMBER 2011: The signal from a satellite-tracked young golden eagle (hatched in 2010) stopped functioning when she was at a location in the Monadhliaths, a well-known raptor persecution black spot in the Highlands. Her last known location was checked by researchers but there was no sign of the bird. Another technical malfunction of a satellite transmitter or another ‘disappearance’ in suspicious circumstances?
MARCH 2012: The body of a young golden eagle being tracked by satellite was discovered in Lochaber. Tests revealed it had been poisoned with the banned pesticides Aldicarb and Bendiocarb. Information about this incident was not made public until three months later. One year and 4 months later, we are not aware of any prosecutions for poisoning this bird.
MARCH 2012: The signal from a satellite-tracked young golden eagle (hatched in 2011) stopped functioning when the bird was in the eastern glens, a well-known raptor persecution blackspot. Another technical malfunction of a satellite transmitter or another ‘disappearance’ in suspicious circumstances?
MAY 2012: The dead body of a young satellite-tracked golden eagle (hatched in 2011) was discovered near a lay-by in Aboyne, Aberdeenshire. The data from its satellite tag & the injuries the bird had when found (2 broken legs) suggested it had been caught in an illegal trap in the Angus glens and then removed, under cover of darkness, to be dumped in another area where it was left to die, probably a slow and agonising death. Information on this incident was not released until almost five months later, by the RSPB. It appears the police failed to properly investigate this incident as we understand that no search warrants were issued. One year and 2 months later, we are not aware of any pending prosecutions for killing this bird.
MAY/JUNE 2012: The signal from a young satellite-tracked golden eagle stopped functioning when the bird was north-east of the Cairngorms National Park. Another technical malfunction of a satellite transmitter or another ‘disappearance’ in suspicious circumstances?
OCTOBER 2012: An adult golden eagle was found shot and critically injured on grouse moor at Buccleuch Estate, near Wanlockhead, South Lanarkshire. The bird was rescued by the SSPCA and underwent surgery but it eventually succumbed to its injuries in April 2013. Nine months later, we’re not aware of any pending prosecutions for shooting this bird.
MAY 2013: The signal from a two-year-old satellite tracked golden eagle stopped functioning after it’s last signal from North Glenbuchat Estate in Aberdeenshire. Another technical malfunction of a satellite transmitter or another ‘disappearance’ in suspicious circumstances?
Following yesterday’s announcement by Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse on his proposed further measures to tackle the illegal persecution of Scottish raptors (here), we’d like to follow up by asking him for some clarifications on the latest measures, and for some updates on previously-promised measures. If you want to cut and paste these questions and send them yourself, or adapt them in your own letter, or simply cut and paste this blog’s URL to your own letter, please feel free. His email address appears at the foot of this page.
Question 1.
Please can you clarify whether the Lord Advocate has instructed COPFS to accept covert video footage as admissible evidence in prosecutions for alleged raptor persecution incidents?
Question 2.
Please can you clarify the timescale for SNH’s review for introducing potential restrictions on the use of General Licences in areas where they have good reason to believe crimes against wild birds have been committed? In other words, when can we expect the review to be completed? Also, will their review be made publicly available?
Question 3.
Please can you advise whether there will be a prosecution under the new vicarious liability legislation following the recent conviction of gamekeeper Peter Bell, found guilty of poisoning offences on the Glasserton and Physgill Estates (here)? If you don’t know the answer (which would be surprising, given that you said in March 2013 that you would be “keeping an eye on this particular area [i.e. vicarious liability] with interest“, see here), please can you provide the contact details of someone who can answer the question?
Question 4.
Please can you tell us the status of the Scottish Government’s first annual report (2012) into wildlife crime? As you know, under the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011, there is a now a requirement (under section 26B) that ‘Scottish Ministers must, after the end of each calendar year, lay before the Scottish Parliament a report on offences relating to wildlife’ (see here for copy of the WANE Act 2011). You mentioned in March 2013 that your policy officials ‘are currently working on’ this report (see here). When can we expect this report to be available?
Question 5.
Please can you tell us when, exactly, will you open the consultation regarding the increase of SSPCA powers to broaden the range of their work investigating wildlife crime? As you know, this consultation was first suggested by former MSP Peter Peacock as an amendment during the WANE Act debates, way back in February 2011. The then Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham rejected it as an amendment but suggested a consultation was in order (see here). Seven months later in September 2011, MSP Elaine Murray lodged a motion that further powers for the SSPCA should be considered (see here). In November 2011, Elaine Murray MSP formalised the question in a P&Q session and the next Environment Minister, Stewart Stevenson, then promised that the consultation would happen in the first half of 2012 (see here). Nothing happened so in September 2012 we asked you, as the new Environment Minister, when the consultation would take place (see here). In response to one of our blog readers in October 2012 your policy officer said: “The consultation has been delayed by resource pressures but will be brought forward in the near future“. Nine months later and we’re in July 2013 – almost 2.5 years after Scottish Ministers committed to undertaking the consultation. Where is it?
The Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse has today announced what he calls ‘further measures’ to tackle the on-going problem of illegal raptor persecution in Scotland. Here is his statement in full:
“Since I took on responsibility for this portfolio, I have been clear that one of my priorities is to bear down on the illegal persecution of raptors that continues to blight the Scottish countryside and tarnish Scotland’s reputation. These outdated, barbaric and criminal practices put at risk the conservation status of some of our most magnificent wildlife. They also harm our reputation as a country which values its environment and wildlife and undermine the growing tourism sector that is built on that reputation.
We have achieved much since 2007. We have a robust legal framework that protects birds of prey and their nests, including the new vicarious liability provisions. We have dedicated resources in Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS). We are leading the way in the UK in the development of wildlife crime forensics work, and we continue to work at building a broad-based alliance through the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW Scotland).
In 2012 we saw a very welcome reduction in poisoning cases. However a number of recent reports, some of which are in the public domain and some of which are still subject to police enquiries, suggest that there is still a problem with the use of poison as well as cases involving illegal trapping and shooting. I have decided therefore that the time is right to bring forward some further measures which I hope will deter those involved in illegal activities.
Wildlife crime, and raptor persecution in particular, often takes place in remote locations or in the dark of night. By its very surreptitious nature, the likelihood of being seen by a member of the public who can report the matter to the authorities is small.
I have spoken with the Lord Advocate, who maintains a close personal interest in all wildlife crime. We are both keen to maximise the opportunity for offences to be detected and offenders to be tracked down.
The Lord Advocate has instructed the specialist prosecutors in the Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit to work with Police Scotland to ensure that law enforcement utilises all investigative tools at their disposal in the fight against wildlife crime.
This work will take place within the National Wildlife Crime Co-Ordinating Forum – a group attended by police Wildlife Crime Liaison Officers from across Scotland and the police’s full-time Scottish Wildlife Crime Co-Ordinator, as well as senior police officers, the National Wildlife Crime Unit, Scottish Government officials and the specialist prosecutors from the Wildlife and Environment Crime Unit within COPFS.
Secondly, in my capacity as Chair of PAW Scotland, I intend to establish a group to carry out a review and report to me on how wildlife crime is treated within the criminal justice system, including examining whether the penalties available for wildlife crime properly reflect the seriousness of the damage caused to vulnerable wildlife and fragile habitats and ecosystems.
Thirdly, I will be asking Scottish Natural Heritage in their capacity as the authority for licensing decisions under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to examine how and in what circumstances they can restrict the use of General Licences to trap and shoot wild birds on land where they have good reason to believe that crimes against wild birds have taken place. These General Licences allow the holders to carry out actions that would otherwise be unlawful if undertaken, without any reference to SNH. We regard the use of General Licences as a privilege that should not be extended in circumstances where there is evidence that their use may be facilitating illegal activities.
In putting together these measures I have sought to focus only on those individuals and businesses where there are very good reasons to believe they are involved in illegal practices. I am very keen to avoid anything that places an unfair burden on the majority of shooting businesses that are law-abiding and responsible members of the rural community. I should also say that I think it is important that wildlife crime is treated in exactly the same way as other types of crime. This means information about cases should be handled in the same way as in other types of crime and that the police and prosecutors are allowed the time and space to carry out whatever investigations they believe to be necessary according to their own professional judgement. We should not descend into allowing trial by leak and accusation. There is a responsibility on us all to avoid that.
In conclusion I wish to reiterate that eradicating raptor persecution in Scotland remains a high priority for the Scottish Government. It is not however the sole responsibility of the Scottish Government. Law enforcement clearly has a key role to play and I am confident that we are ratcheting up the pressure on those committing acts of illegal persecution. However, everyone involved in the Scottish countryside, and in particular those involved with shooting, should make abundantly clear their disapproval to the minority whose actions are tarnishing the reputation of Scotland’s country sports”.
So, this is the much anticipated ‘action’ against illegal raptor persecution that’s been promised since last autumn when Paul Wheelhouse was appointed. Whilst we welcome his willingness to engage with the issue (in stark comparison to his English counterpart who won’t even admit there’s a problem), we see these latest measures as tiny baby steps in the right direction, and not the decisive hefty stamp that could have been delivered.
The first four paragraphs of his statement are just introductory comments with the usual rhetoric, such as, “We have achieved much since 2007”. Actually, we haven’t. Raptors are still being illegally killed on land managed for game-shooting and more often than not the criminal(s) involved are not being prosecuted. In the few instances where they are prosecuted, there is evidence of extensive plea-bargaining resulting in convictions only for the minor offences, not for the major crimes.
“In 2012 we saw a very welcome reduction in poisoning cases”. No, we didn’t. What we saw was a reduction in the number of reported poisoning cases; that’s a very important distinction. Members of the game-shooting industry (and government, it seems) have made much of this claim, using it as an example of how the industry is cleaning up its act. They won’t be able to make the claim for much longer – we understand that there have been several poisoning incidents already in 2013 and we’re only half-way through the year. Naturally, once again the public haven’t (yet) been informed about these poisonings even though they took place several months ago. We’ll come back to this issue.
The first ‘new’ measure that Wheelhouse is introducing is this:“The Lord Advocate has instructed the specialist prosecutors in the Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit to work with Police Scotland to ensure that law enforcement utilises all investigative tools at their disposal in the fight against wildlife crime”.
This is interesting, particularly because it immediately follows this paragraph:
“Wildlife crime, and raptor persecution in particular, often takes place in remote locations or in the dark of night. By its very surreptitious nature, the likelihood of being seen by a member of the public who can report the matter to the authorities is small”.
Does this mean that prosecutors in Scotland are being told by the Lord Advocate that they should now accept covert video surveillance as admissible evidence? If this is the case then it would be a very welcome step indeed. Covert film footage is routinely accepted as admissible evidence in England, but in Scotland it continues to be blocked by the Crown Office prosecutors. Why? We don’t know – we’ve never heard a satisfactory explanation. If our assumption is correct (and of course it may not be) and covert footage is to be accepted, then Wheelhouse deserves a good deal of credit for this single measure. We’ll be watching this potential development with great interest.
His second measure is to establish (yet another) group within the framework of PAW Scotland, “to carry out a review and report to me on how wildlife crime is treated within the criminal justice system, including examining whether the penalties available for wildlife crime properly reflect the seriousness of the damage caused to vulnerable wildlife and fragile habitats and ecosystems”. We’re not so impressed with this plan; it seems to be reinventing the wheel. A similar review was carried out in 2008 (Natural Justice 2008) following the poisoning of the last remaining breeding female golden eagle in the Scottish Borders in 2007. That review made many recommendations to improve the efficiency of detecting and prosecuting wildlife crime in Scotland, some of which have since been implemented but many have not. It would perhaps have been a good opportunity for Wheelhouse to critically evaluate the implementation of those recommendations made five years ago, rather than start off the process again from scratch, which just leads to further delays in addressing the actual problem.
The third and final new measure is what we would call a fig-leaf approach to tackling illegal raptor persecution. Wheelhouse says: “I will be asking Scottish Natural Heritage in their capacity as the authority for licensing decisions under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to examine how and in what circumstances they can restrict the use of General Licences to trap and shoot wild birds on land where they have good reason to believe that crimes against wild birds have taken place. These General Licences allow the holders to carry out actions that would otherwise be unlawful if undertaken, without any reference to SNH. We regard the use of General Licences as a privilege that should not be extended in circumstances where there is evidence that their use may be facilitating illegal activities”.
At a superficial level, a restriction on the use of the General Licence sounds like a positive action. But let’s just think about the practicalities. First of all, Wheelhouse suggests that the General Licence may be restricted where SNH have “good reason to believe that crimes against wild birds have taken place”. That sounds like SNH would require a lower burden of proof to show that crimes against wild birds have taken place than say, for example, a criminal conviction. In real terms, how would that work? What would constitute ‘good reason’? The discovery of a poisoned or shot bird on a particular piece of land? In legal terms that’s not enough evidence for a conviction because the estate in question could legitimately argue (no matter how implausible) that the dead bird had been planted by someone with a grudge against them, or that the bird had been poisoned/shot elsewhere and just happened to fly on to their estate where it finally succumbed to its injuries. We can be certain that if SNH tried to use such evidence as giving them ‘good reason to believe that crimes against wild birds have taken place’ they would face a strong legal challenge by the estate’s lawyers. So then we’re back to the current situation whereby a conviction in a court of law is the only acceptable proof that the crime was committed by someone associated with the estate where the dead bird was found and those convictions are, as we all know, almost as rare as rocking horse shit.
But even if SNH could use a lower burden of proof as reason to believe a crime had been committed, there would still be difficulties. The use of General Licences is barely monitored or enforced due to the high volume of people operating under their terms. By their very nature, a General Licence is not actually issued to an individual – you don’t have to apply to use one and there isn’t even a competency test that you must first pass – it’s an open ‘licence’ that anyone can use to carry out what would otherwise be unlawful activities, such as the killing of so-called ‘pest species’ such as crows. We occasionally see a prosecution for an offence relating to a General Licence, e.g. when the operator of a crow cage trap has failed to meet the licence’s terms and conditions, but these prosecutions are rare and incidental. No statutory authority is regularly monitoring the use of General Licences (e.g. SNH don’t do it, the police don’t do it) – we don’t even know how many people are operating under the General Licences because the operators are not required to submit annual returns. So, if SNH did ‘restrict the use’ of a General Licence on a particular piece of land, who would be enforcing that restriction? How would we know whether a restriction was in place? Would the location and name of the estate be published? For how long would the restriction be in place? What would be the penalty if an estate was found to be flouting the restriction?
All in all, this proposed new measure has glaring loopholes that in practical terms would be very difficult to close. It’s hugely disappointing that the Minister has taken this route instead of another option that is already available to him in the provisions of the Wildlife & Countryside Act – that is, the ability to enforce a (temporary) ‘closed season’ on the hunting of a particular game bird species in a particular area (or in this case, a specific estate). For example, in exceptional circumstances a Minister can impose a temporary moratorium on shooting specific species during periods of prolonged severe weather. The authority to impose such restrictions is already there in the legislation – it wouldn’t require the lengthy drafting of new legislation – if he wanted to enforce a temporary ban on, say, driven grouse shooting on a particular moor, he could do so. This measure would fit with his approach of only targeting the criminals, not the ‘law-abiding majority’ (his words, not ours) so why isn’t he pursuing it? Just another missed opportunity.
One final point about the Minister’s statement – the bit in his penultimate paragraph where he says this:
“I should also say that I think it is important that wildlife crime is treated in exactly the same way as other types of crime. This means information about cases should be handled in the same way as in other types of crime and that the police and prosecutors are allowed the time and space to carry out whatever investigations they believe to be necessary according to their own professional judgement. We should not descend into allowing trial by leak and accusation. There is a responsibility on us all to avoid that”.
We whole-heartedly agree that wildlife crime should be treated in exactly the same way as other types of crime. This means that these crimes should be properly publicised in the media, just as other crimes are, and especially when they involve the discovery of potentially-fatal poisons that put the general public at significant risk. We hold very strong opinions on this and are adamant that it is not in the public interest for the police to keep these crimes hidden from view for months on end. Until we see an end to this ridiculous culture of silence we’ll continue to blog about these crimes with a measured, accurate and responsible approach.
We’ll be blogging later this week with some specific questions for Paul Wheelhouse….
Scottish Land & Estate’s response to the announcement here.
RSPB Scotland’s response here.
Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association response here.
BASC Scotland’s response here.
The case against three gamekeepers who are accused of committing alleged wildlife crimes on the Morvich Estate at Rogart, Sutherland in February 2012 has been adjourned for a 5th hearing.
The case against Mathew Ian Johnston, Jamie Robert Neal and William Robert Docharty was first called at Dornoch Sheriff Court on 27th November 2012 (see here), where a trial date was set for 19th March 2013, with an intermediate diet on 18th February 2013.
However, at the hearing on 18th February 2013 (here), a further hearing was set for 13th May and a possible trial date set for 9th July, pending the outcome of the hearing in May.
At the hearing on 13th May 2013 (see here), the defence asked for another adjournment to allow more time for preparation. The next hearing date was set for 25th June 2013.
At the hearing yesterday (25th June 2013)…guess what? Another hearing was set for 8th July 2013.
Well would you believe it. Another young satellite-tagged golden eagle has mysteriously ‘disappeared’.
This time it’s a two-year-old bird called ‘Angus 33’, being sat-tracked by Roy Dennis (see here). The bird’s last known signal came from the North Glenbuchat Estate on 13th May 2013. A search was undertaken but nothing was found.
Naturally, there’s no evidence to demonstrate the eagle has been illegally killed, it’s just vanished into thin air in the same area that several other sat-tagged golden eagles have ‘disappeared’ in recent years. What a bloody mystery, eh?
Further mysteries from here include who used Carbofuran to poison a young golden eagle found in March 2011 (here), who used Carbofuran to poison a buzzard found in May 2011 (here, p.9) and who shot the short-eared owl that was found stuffed under a rock in May 2011 (here, p.6 & p.14)?
The Headkeeper of this estate was convicted of poisoning offences in 2006 (see here).
A press release has gone out this morning appealing for information after a dead red kite was discovered on Royal Deeside. According to the information released (see here), the bird was found in an area of woodland near Aboyne on 6th April 2013. The wing-tagged bird was known to be a three-year-old breeding female, originally from Perthshire, who had successfully raised three offspring in 2012 close to the area where subsequently she was killed.
Bizarrely, the press release does not explain how the kite was killed. Instead it has the following cryptic statement:
“After recovery of the carcass, a post mortem was carried out. This revealed that the bird’s death was not by natural causes”.
So what does that mean then? Was she poisoned? Caught in a leg-hold trap? Shot? Caught in a crow trap and clubbed to death?
We’ve seen this sort of press release before, notably in 2010 when the police force formerly known as Northern Constabulary put out an appeal for information after an osprey died from what was described as ‘deliberately inflicted injuries’ (see here). A few days later it was confirmed that the osprey had been shot (see here).
If this kite’s death was the result of a crime, which we presume it was given that she died of ‘unnatural causes’ and the police are appealing for information, then why the hell aren’t we just told straight? What’s the point of dressing it up to make it sound less serious than it is?
And why, yet again, has there been such a long delay between the discovery of the dead bird and the appeal for information? The bird was found on 6th April – the weekend after the Easter bank holiday – that’s over two and a half months ago. Sure, the police will want to conduct their initial investigations and so there may be an understandable delay of a couple of weeks, but there’s absolutely no operational excuse for a delay of nearly three months before it’s made public.
So here we have yet another example of an illegally-persecuted raptor – yet more evidence that the wildlife criminals are continuing to defy the law, safe in the knowledge that they’re virtually untouchable. Where are the promised ‘new measures’ to tackle raptor persecution from our Environment Minister, Paul Wheelhouse? We expected a statement from him this week but so far, nothing. The Scottish parliamentary recess begins next week (29th June until 1st September) – will we hear from him before then? Email: ministerforenvironment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Some background info about Scottish red kites:
Following their extinction as a breeding bird in Scotland in 1917, a joint RSPB Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage project was undertaken with the aim of restoring the species to its former range.
Kites were released in four areas of Scotland:
In 1989-1994, 93 birds on the Black Isle;
In 1996-2001, 103 birds in Stirlingshire/Perthshire;
In 2001-05, 104 birds in Dumfries & Galloway;
In 2007-09, 101 birds in Aberdeenshire.
In 2012, there were 214 breeding pairs of red kites in Scotland.
From 1989-2011, a minimum of 75 red kites fell victim to illegal poisoning, with a further seven the victims of illegal shooting, trapping or nest destruction.
UPDATE 13.30hr: It’s been confirmed that this red kite had been shot. Why the bloody hell didn’t they just say that to begin with?
In the space of a couple of weeks in May, a petition calling for the Scottish Government not to cull buzzards reached a remarkable 23,000 signatures.
Compare this figure with the number 5,000 – this is the number of people who have so far voted for their ‘favourite’ species in Scotland’s ‘Big 5’ campaign. That campaign has been running for over two months.
Well done to Lewis Davies who set up the ‘Do not cull buzzards’ petition in the wake of Natural England’s disgusting decision to issue a licence in England allowing the destruction of buzzard nests and eggs to ‘protect’ pheasants reared for game-shooting. Well done also to the 23,000 people who agreed with him and made the effort to sign.
Today, the petition will be handed over to Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse at Holyrood. If you’re in Edinburgh and can get to Holyrood at 12.30 then come on over….
A Scottish gamekeeper has today been convicted for a number of wildlife crime offences, including the poisoning of a buzzard.
Peter Finley Bell (62) pleaded guilty to four charges at Stranraer Sheriff Court and was fined a total of £4,450.
Bell is a full-time gamekeeper and has sole responsibility for rearing pheasants and organising shooting on Glasserton and Physgill Estates which includes land on Glasserton Home Farm, Whithorn.
Bell committed the poisoning offence on 23 December 2012 at Glasserton Home Farm. He had laced the carcass of a pheasant baited with Carbofuran and set the bait in a field. A birdwatcher passing the farm saw something flapping in the field and on closer inspection found that it was a common buzzard, lying on the ground, in the last throws of life.
Subsequent forensic work showed that the buzzard had died as a result of ingesting the poisoned bait.
A search of Bell’s home address on 5 March 2013 revealed poisonous substances in his tool shed and home which are illegal to possess, namely Carbofuran, Strychnine and Aphachloralose.
Bell’s fine was broken down as follows:
£2,450 for killing the buzzard (reduced from £3,500 to reflect his guilty plea)
£1,400 for possession of Carbofuran (reduced from £2,000)
£300 for possession of Strychnine (reduced from £500)
£300 for possession of Alphachloralose (reduced from £500).
There are some interesting points about this case. First of all, the speed of the judicial process – offences committed in December 2012 and March 2013, criminal convicted by June 2013! That has to be some sort of record and it is very, very pleasing to see.
But why, if the poisoned pheasant carcass and buzzard were found in December, did it take more than two months to conduct a search of Bell’s home?
It’ll be interesting to find out if Bell is/was a member of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association: info@scottishgamekeepers.co.uk
It’ll also be interesting to find out if Glasserton & Physgill Estates are members of Scottish Land & Estates: info@scottishlandandestates.co.uk
UPDATE: An important question, raised by blog commentator Michael Gill: what about vicarious liability in this case? Shall we ask the Environment Minister? Email: ministerforenvironment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
UPDATE 16.20: The SGA has issued a statement about this conviction (see here). Interestingly, they do not address the fundamental question of whether this gamekeeper is/was one of their members. The SGA is a member of PAW Scotland and serves on the PAW Scotland Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group. Would it be appropriate for the SGA to continue to serve in this capacity (and take credit for its PAW membership) without being transparent about whether it has a convicted poisoner amongst its membership? We think it would be highly inappropriate. Please raise these concerns with the PAW Scotland Chair – Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse – and demand SGA transparency on this case. Email: ministerforenvironment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
UPDATE 17.25: Scottish Land and Estates have issued a statement to say that the estate in question has been booted out of their organisation. Good news. Statement here.
UPDATE 19th June 08.30: According to a BBC article (here), this convicted gamekeeper was indeed a member of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association and he’s now been kicked out. Strange that the SGA excluded this information from their own statement on their own website.
About two months ago the landowners’ organisation, Scottish Land & Estates, made a series of false allegations about this blog (see here).
It seems they just can’t help themselves. Two days ago (14th June 2013) they published the following on their website, in response to our blog about the discovery of poisoned baits on Leadhills Estate (our original article here) –
“Information about police investigation leaked by anonymous website
Confidential information about an active police investigation on a grouse moor has again been leaked to the media.
This relates to an incident in March at Leadhills Estate where according to the police, some items were removed for scientific analysis and a number of people were detained, but no charges have been made. An anonymous website, allegedly with close links to the animal rights movement, found out confidential information that Government science laboratory analysis of the items had tested positive for carbofuran and published this confidential information, resulting in media coverage on 11th June.
Although there were no birds of prey involved, the whole land management and shooting industry is very concerned about a possible attempted poisoning after such a sharp drop in such incidents over the last three years. However, little is known about the detail of this case and it is vital that nothing is done or said which might risk prejudicing the legal process or cause unjustifiable damage to the reputations of anyone connected to the estate. Questions certainly need to be asked about the leaking and publication of material information about the case while this is still under active police investigation.
The media stories included a comment from Scottish Land & Estates which said: “It would be inappropriate to comment while the facts of the matter have still be established. As an organisation, we are actively involved in the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime and our membership undertakes an enormous amount of good work in this area.” The Scottish Gamekeepers Association also said “Because this appears to be subject of a live investigation, it would not be appropriate to comment other than to reiterate that the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association does not condone illegal poisoning.”
Here is the link to the article on their website.
Let’s start with their sub-header: “Confidential information about an active police investigation on a grouse moor has again been leaked to the media”. This may well be an active police investigation but in terms of reporting restrictions that is irrelevant. What is important is when the actual criminal case becomes active. Once the criminal case, not the police investigation, becomes active, this then triggers certain reporting restrictions relating to the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Under Scottish law, a criminal case becomes active once an arrest warrant has been issued, or someone has been arrested, or someone has been charged. Thus, in this instance, SL&E’s use of the phrase ‘an active police investigation’ is misleading as it suggests information has been leaked in contempt.
Now let’s look at their first paragraph, and particularly the sentence: “An anonymous website, allegedly with close links to the animal rights movement, found out confidential information that Government science laboratory analysis of the items had tested positive for carbofuran and published this confidential information, resulting in media coverage on 11th June”. They don’t name the ‘anonymous website’, but as we were the only anonymous website to publish the original article then we have to assume they are referring to us. In which case, we would like to know the basis of their claim that we allegedly have close links to the animal rights movement. In our view this is a crudely attempted slur on our credibility. The stereotypical image of the animal rights movement as portrayed in the media has traditionally focused on the illegal activities of those involved in campaigns against animal testing laboratories – the image of a black-clothed, balaclava-wearing extremist intent on breaking the law by fire-bombing business premises, vehicles and homes or digging up human remains, all in the name of ‘defending the rights of animals’, immediately springs to mind. Is that the image that Scottish Land & Estates are trying to attribute to us? If it is, it looks like they have scored another own goal. We would argue that that stereotype is no longer valid – look at the thousands of people who recently protested in London against the badger cull. They could legitimately be portrayed as being members of the animal rights movement and yet that crowd included serving Members of Parliament and even QCs. Law-breaking terrorists marauding through London causing damage & inciting fear, or concerned professionals legitimately and peacefully exercising their right to protest? We wholeheartedly support the lawful badger cull protesters and if that defines us as having ‘close links to the animal rights movement’ then so what? We are happy to have that association, although we’d argue that it doesn’t amount to anything like ‘close links’. But if SL&E are trying to suggest that we are ‘closely linked’ with criminal activities then that is a much more serious allegation that our lawyers would be most interested in examining.
Sticking with their first paragraph, let’s move on to their claim that we published “confidential information” (about the Carbofuran) “resulting in media coverage on 11th June”. This is utter bollocks. We deliberately did not name the type of poison that had been used to lace the poisoned baits in our original article. SL&E should try reading our article again and pay closer attention this time. Carbofuran was actually first mentioned in the BBC’s article, which was published several hours after ours on 10th June, and which we added as an update to our original article later that evening. We’ll be happy to accept an apology from Scottish Land & Estates in relation to their false allegation against us.
But so what if we had mentioned Carbofuran? This isn’t ‘confidential information’ – look at the quarterly poisoning stats published by SASA – they always name the poison(s) they’ve detected in the course of on-going police investigations, and quite rightly so; this is a matter of massive public interest. Look at any other area of crime involving banned substances – the police always publish the name of the banned substances that they’ve seized, e.g heroin, cocaine etc. As an example, here is a news item from just yesterday detailing the seizure of cannabis and the name of the premises where it was reportedly found. This type of reporting is very, very common – if you don’t believe us just take a look at Police Scotland’s website and look at the frequency with which these seizure stories appear. Funny isn’t it, that those investigations are publicised within a matter of days and yet those news reports don’t prejudice the outcome of any subsequent criminal case, do they? So why should the reporting of alleged raptor persecution investigations be treated any differently?
Moving on to their second paragraph and the following sentence: “However, little is known about the detail of this case and it is vital that nothing is done or said which might risk prejudicing the legal process or cause unjustifiable damage to the reputations of anyone connected to the estate”. Little is known about the detail of this case precisely because of our restraint in the publication of details! Check out the first sentence of paragraph three in our article:
“Because this is an on-going police investigation there is only limited detail that we’re prepared to publish at this stage”.
Are those the words of people intent on prejudicing the legal process? No, they’re not. They’re the words of responsible bloggers who could easily have published a mass of detail, such as the number of poisoned baits found, the specific site location, the way the baits were stored, the specifics of the meat used, and the name of the poison used to lace the baits. We could even have posted photographs from the scene. We deliberately didn’t include any of this material evidence in our article.
Their last sentence in paragraph two reads: “Questions certainly need to be asked about the leaking and publication of material information about the case while this is still under active police investigation”. Questions certainly do need to be asked, but not about the leaking and publication of material information, for all the reasons we’ve stated above. No, other more relevant questions need to be asked, such as:
SL&E also published a further article two days ago, relating to media coverage (here & here) of the alleged felling of the white-tailed eagle nest tree on Invermark Estate. Read their article here. In this article, SL&E state that the estate has been ‘fully cooperating’ with the police inquiry. You wouldn’t expect anything else from a law-abiding estate. Hopefully that ‘full cooperation’ includes full and complete witness statements from everyone involved with the Estate from the top down. Anything less, such as ‘no comment’ interviews would not, in our opinion, be in the spirit of what we’d call ‘full cooperation’, even though such responses are entirely legal.
Also in this article, SL&E argue that it was inappropriate for information about the case to be released before the outcome is known. This sounds like a philosophy whereby there should be a blanket media ban on publishing any information relating to alleged raptor persecution incidents until the outcome of the police case is known. That would probably suit the game-shooting industry down to the ground: if this ridiculous philosophy was in place, none of us would be any the wiser to the hundreds of illegally-killed raptors found on shooting estates over the last 25+ years because the majority of these cases have not resulted in charges being brought and are, therefore, still technically considered to be ‘on-going’ police investigations. To put it in a broader context, if the philosophy was given a wider application we wouldn’t know anything of, for example, Operation Yewtree or the recent Woolwich murder.
Scottish Land & Estates would do well to put their influence to better use and focus their efforts on ousting the criminal element from within the game-shooting industry instead of wasting time promoting censorship of responsible reports on matters of legitimate public interest.
Raptor Persecution UK 