Author: RaptorPersecutionUK

Red kite poisoned, 20 months after its mother suffered the same fate

Poisoned kite photo Marc RuddockA young red kite has been poisoned in County Wicklow in the Republic of Ireland, 20 months after its mother was killed the same way.

The young bird was found in January and tests have confirmed it had been poisoned with both Carbofuran and Alphacloralose – the first time both chemicals have been found in an Irish kite. It’s mother was poisoned with Alphachloralose in December 2011.

The Golden Eagle Trust (the group behind the reintroduction of golden eagles, white-tailed eagles and red kites in the Irish Republic) described the poisoning of two generations of a red kite family as “totally devastating”.

The latest bird (Blue White 21) is the first of 21 Irish-born kites to be poisoned. It was found by a member of the public close to the golf club in the town. The bird was still alive but died shortly afterwards.

News article from Golden Eagle Trust here

News article in the Irish Independent here

2013 wildlife crime conference: Paul Wheelhouse, Environment minister

The 2013 Scottish Police Wildlife Crime conference took place last Thursday (14th March). Many of this year’s presentations were once again directly relevant to raptor persecution and we’ll be commenting on these in due course.

To start off this year’s blog series, here are excerpts from the Environment Minister’s speech. He started by thanking the organisers etc before moving onto the meaty stuff:

“We’re now more than a year on since the passing of the Wildlife & Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 and my predecessor, Stewart Stevenson, stood here last year and, amongst other things, talked about the new vicarious liability provisions. Now, we’ve not seen any prosecutions under the vicarious liability yet; I think it remains very likely that circumstances will arise in the future when these provisions can be brought into play and we will all be very interested to see how they work out in court.

In the meantime though, I am certain that whilst persecution of wild birds does exist in parts of our countryside, this change in the law has already had a deterrent effect as responsible land managers take a close look at management practices and training for employees and contractors. As Stewart said last year, we’ve never been out to get prosecutions; we just want to see an end to these criminal acts. However, if a conviction is what it takes to make those breaking the law stop, take notice and address their behaviour, then so be it. I shall be keeping an eye on this particular area with interest. A true test of course may be when we see raptors in all areas that should be their natural habitat and a disappearance of these ‘not spots’.

So what’s coming up in 2013? Legislative changes my team of policy officials have been working on which are of relevance to the conference include provisions relating to snaring, and invasive non-native species, and you will be hearing more from Catherine Murdoch about non-native species later today, and Kenny Wilmott from BASC will be talking about the importance of keeping up to date in relation to the use of snares and traps.

2013 will also see the publication of the first government report into wildlife crime. Policy officials are currently working on this and I’m sure it will make for an interesting read and it will no doubt provide a focal point to drive forward the debate on what is a very important topic. What we are looking to achieve with this report is an idea of what wildlife crime in Scotland looks like overall, the big picture if you will. This will not be easy because it’s the first report, there’ll be nothing to compare it with. However, like poisoning maps, once we have a few reports published we will hopefully start to see trends and pictures emerge. It will also be a challenge to compare data from all of the different agencies such as the police, National Wildlife Crime Unit, the Crown Office and the Scottish Government Justice Department. However challenging that may be, it is an extremely worthwhile cause. And unfortunately crimes and any resulting prosecutions don’t fall neatly into calendar years. They also are not always recorded in a manner which allows for obvious interpretation of the charges. So for example, where there is more than one charge, which so often occurs in the lesser charges of wildlife crimes, then the main charge is usually what appears in the records. We’ll therefore be looking to present the data as simply as possible, but with a view to ensuring any comparisons are meaningful, if indeed that is possible. And I’m looking forward to the publication of this report to act as a standard we can use going forward. I will leave the experts to talk to you about the legislative changes across the rest of today, however should you fancy a chat with a policy official over a sausage roll at lunch, please feel free to collar any one of them.

I’d like now to turn to the annual raptor poisoning maps which were published this morning. These maps generate significant media interest and many of you will already have seen the figures. There has been a major drop in confirmed incident numbers recorded for 2012 and this must be welcomed in the warmest possible terms. Whilst any poisoning is unacceptable, the fact that just three birds were confirmed poisoned in 2012 – a golden eagle and two buzzards – must represent progress. This is the second significant drop in two years and we hope it is evidence of the beginning of the end of poisoning of birds of prey in Scotland. We are now, however, facing a critical moment with the maps. The purpose of the maps is to highlight problem areas with an agreed and confirmed set of data, and to build the partnership working within PAW. So, so far we’ve made good progress on those objectives but we cannot now afford to see things slipping back. So let me make it abundantly clear: poisoning cannot be replaced with other types of persecution, and whilst it’s not appropriate for me to elaborate, I was heartened to hear that the police investigation into the 2012 poisoning case for a buzzard has made progress. And it does sicken me that unfortunately, once again, a bird has died as a result of Carbofuran poisoning, but I very much hope to see a positive outcome in that particular case. If we do continue to see a downward trend with the poisoning maps, but there is evidence perhaps of other types of persecution taking its place, as I’ve already said on the record, I will have no hesitation nor indeed very little option but to consider what other measures might be necessary.

optableLast year we lost two golden eagles – one was poisoned, another was found dead in suspicious circumstances, whilst a third which was shot is thankfully in recovery with the SSPCA, and I must thank Chief Superintendant Mike Flynn and his colleagues for their excellent efforts in caring for the eagle so far and I look forward to one day seeing that particular victim of a crime return to good health. These golden eagle incidents generated a huge amount of media and public interest and rightly so, as our golden eagles are part of what makes up our national identity. As a partnership we share a duty of care to work hard to stop wildlife crime and as I stated earlier, we will know if we’ve achieved success when we see the raptors return to areas where they are currently absent. And we must also recognise that this will not happen overnight.

Keeping on the raptor theme, the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group, which is a key PAW Scotland group, has been continuing to look at a number of initiatives, latest being a hen harrier action plan. The members of this group have come up with a strategy to look at the status of this species across Scotland and see what can be done to help it recover. Whilst the plan is still being finalised I wanted to draw your attention to it and highlight what work is being done in the background. This is an exciting piece of work and I hope it will build on the partnership working approach by involving all those on the ground in monitoring and reporting on nesting birds. If I’m standing here this time next year, I hope that I’ll be able to give you an update as to what’s been accomplished and that genuine progress is being observed”.

The Minister then went on to discuss other areas of wildlife crime, police reform in Scotland and the Year of Natural Scotland. He ended by thanking everyone for their work and particularly on behalf of “the innocent victims of wildlife crime who clearly cannot speak for themselves”.

Comment:

It’s tempting to make comparisons between Scotland’s Environment Minister and his UK equivalent. In light of the UK government’s appalling recent attitude towards dealing with wildlife crime, Wheelhouse looks like an environmental god. He isn’t that, but he is certainly a good way further ahead than his contemporaries south of the border. But although comparisons are useful, it’s also important to assess his presentation just within the context of Scottish wildlife crime, and particularly within the field of raptor persecution.

In our opinion, this presentation drew the battle line. Wheelhouse is exceptionally well-informed on the persecution issue (especially for someone who has only been in post for six months), he understands the important details of how these crimes are reported (or not reported) and he seems genuinely determined that raptor persecution will not be allowed to continue on his watch.

Wheelhouse is clearly not fooled by the superficial short-term results of the poisoning maps. He understands that other persecution methods are being used to achieve the same effect. He understands that despite vicarious liability and other measures, persecution will undoubtedly continue. He understands that the only true measure of success will be the return of raptors into areas where currently they are conspicuously absent. He understands the shambolic state of raptor crime reporting and the limitations of the data in their current format. He understands the fury and frustration we all experience when we hear of yet another persecuted bird of prey and he seems to understand that our patience has run out – we simply will not tolerate this disgraceful practice any longer.

Of course, it’s easy to give a rousing speech and to say the things the audience wants to hear. It’s fair to say that most of us have become jaded by the empty rhetoric that’s been heaped on us decade after decade while the raptor killing continues right under our noses. However, to be fair to Wheelhouse, he personally is not responsible for all those previous platitudes and promises. Is he going to be different and stick by his commitment to stamp out persecution? More than with any other Environment Minister of recent years, there is a sense that something is going to happen this time. As always though, it will be the actions that follow the words that we’ll be taking the most interest in. The battle line has most definitely been drawn and now it’s a question of watching and waiting. The next persecution incident is just around the corner…

No need to criminalise possession of Carbofuran, reckons UK govt

EACLast October the cross-party Environmental Audit Committee recommended a range of measures to help tackle wildlife crime in the UK (excluding Scotland) following an extensive public inquiry into the scale of wildlife crime (see here, here, here, here, here for previous blog entries). The recommended measures included:

  • Criminalising the ‘possession’ — not just the use — of the poison Carbofuran, to make it easier to secure bird poisoning convictions;
  • Introducing an offence of vicarious liability to make landowners responsible for wildlife crimes on their land;
  • Providing long-term Home Office and Defra funding to the National Wildlife Crime Unit, and
  • Tightening up the recording of wildlife crime data to help keep track and tackle trends in wildlife crime.

Today, the Government has published its response to the EAC report and has rejected calls from MPs to criminalise possession of Carbofuran and has refused to give funding certainty for the National Wildlife Crime Unit.

Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, Joan Walley MP, said:

“The Government has missed an opportunity to take two simple measures to protect important wildlife threatened by poachers and criminals in the UK.

It has failed to follow Scotland’s lead in criminalising possession of carbofuran – the main poison used to kill birds of prey. And it has refused to provide the long-term financial certainty that the National Wildlife Crime Unit needs, only making money available for the next 12 months.

It’s good news that the Government will watch how well the ‘vicarious liability’ law works in Scotland, making landowners responsible for what happens on their estates. But the Government should also look at how well the tougher law in Scotland acts as a deterrent, not simply how many convictions there are there.”

Here are the government’s specific responses on the two measures directly relating to raptor persecution:

Recommended measure: To discharge its obligations under the EC Birds Directive, to demonstrate its commitment to addressing raptor persecution and to send a clear signal that it regards poisoning birds of prey as wholly unacceptable, we recommend that the Government immediately introduces an Order under Section 43 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 proscribing possession of carbofuran and other similar substances in England and Wales.

Government’s response: The Government is firmly committed to addressing raptor persecution in England and Wales and this is one of the UK’s wildlife crime priorities (with a focus on hen harrier, goshawk, golden eagle, white-tailed eagle, red kite and peregrine). There is a robust legal framework for protecting birds of prey with penalties which can include imprisonment for offenders.

Approvals for pesticide products containing carbofuran were revoked in 2001; this means that the advertisement, sale, supply, storage or use of products containing carbofuran is already a criminal offence under existing UK pesticide legislation. This offence carries, on conviction, an unlimited fine.

Similar restrictions apply to all other pesticides as the basis of UK and EU pesticide legislation is that no pesticide may be sold, stored or used unless it is first approved. All sale, storage and use of approved pesticides are subject to strict legislative control and are also subject to a code of practice3  as published by Defra.

Additionally the use of any poisonous substance to kill or take wild birds is already an offence under section 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The laws surrounding the possession of pesticides, such as carbofuran, which are harmful to wildlife, have been considered, and the conclusion is that there are alternative ways to handle the issue other than introducing an Order under s.43 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. These include the existing powers under UK pesticide legislation (the Plant Protection Products Regulations 2011 and the Plant Protection Products (Sustainable Use) Regulations 2012), or by encouraging participation in amnesty initiatives, such as the Home Office’s pesticide amnesty, which have already been run very successfully.

 It is difficult to see what more the Government could do that could make it any worse for someone caught using or possessing carbofuran or other similar pesticides.

Recommended measure: Given the scale of ongoing persecution of birds of prey, the current law appears to carry insufficient deterrent weight. We recommend that the Government evaluates the effect of the introduction of an offence of vicarious liability in relation to raptor persecution in Scotland and considers introducing a similar offence in England and Wales in that light. We expect the Government to report to us, or otherwise publish, the results of that review within the next 12 months.

Government’s response: There is already strong legal protection afforded to birds of prey through the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 where it is an offence to intentionally kill or injure any wild bird; take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built; or take or destroy an egg of any wild bird.

Some birds are further protected by their listing in Schedule 1 to the Act. It is an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb them while they are building a nest, or are on, in, or near a nest containing eggs or their young. Native raptors are listed in the Schedule and so are afforded this additional protection.

The Scottish Government introduced the concept of vicarious liability for certain offences by an employee or agent through the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Scotland) 2011 which inserted a new section 18A into the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as it applies in Scotland). This provision came into force in January 2012 but it is early days, and as yet there have not been any convictions under the new provisions. While there are no plans to introduce similar vicarious liability offences in England, we will be looking closely at how the new offences in Scotland work in practice and once prosecutions begin to be brought forward it will be possible to start to assess the impact that the introduction of this legislation has made. It is important that such measures are able to deliver a real improvement in the enforcement of wildlife offences if they are to be considered in the shaping of our future wildlife crime policy in England and as yet it is not possible to assess the effect of these measures.

We are happy to review this as soon as suitable statistics are available.

To read all of the Government’s responses, read the report here.

Analysis of the SGA’s Deeside eagle report

Last month the SGA released a report into their ‘investigation’ into the death of the Deeside golden eagle (see here to read their report).

At the time we said we would comment on their report once we’d received responses to some pending Freedom of Information requests. We’re now in a position to comment.

So, the motivation for the SGA’s ‘investigation’ into the circumstances of this eagle’s death was because of what they perceived as “irregularities” in the media reports put out by the RSPB. Let’s have a look at those ‘irregularities’ in turn.

May2012 GE tayside grampianThe SGA don’t believe that the eagle was caught in an illegally-set trap because during their discussions with the estate’s staff, it was claimed they only ever use Mark 4 Fenn traps as opposed to Mark 6 Fenn traps (and of course statements made by those involved with grouse moor management should always be believed). The SGA say the Mark 4 Fenn trap is too weak to smash the legs of a golden eagle and it would be impossible for an eagle to get both feet caught inside the trap at the same time. However, if you read the RSPB’s original media statement about this incident (released 24th September 2012 – here) nowhere do they mention a Fenn trap. All they mention is a “spring type trap”, which covers a wide array of different traps, both legal and illegal, that could have caused the injuries sustained by that eagle. Indeed, independent veterinary pathology experts at the Scottish Agricultural College laboratory concluded that the two broken legs sustained by this eagle “could be consistent with an injury caused by a spring type trap”. It’s up to the reader to decide whether the statements made by the estate’s staff and the SGA are more authoritative than those of the independent veterinary pathologist experts at the SAC lab.

The SGA say they visited the precise location of the ‘alleged’ trapping on the estate. They say, “Close by, on one side, was a large multi-catch crow cage. On the other was a 7-8 foot deer fence”. This is an interesting interpretation of what “close by” means. We understand that the deer fence is actually at least 80m away from the location where the bird was static for 15 hours.

The SGA say that the eagle could have broken both its legs by crashing into the fence at a speed that could have been in excess of 50mph (according to their falconer friend). However, the post mortem report clearly states that the eagle’s injuries could be consistent with being caught in a spring type trap, not crashing into a static object at high speed. In the event of crashing into the fence with an estimated speed in excess of 50mph, you might expect injuries to the feet and to the pelvis, as a bare minimum. The post mortem report documented two broken legs as the bird’s only injuries. It’s up to the reader to decide whether the statement of an un-named falconer with an unknown level of ‘expertise’ holds more authority than the statements of the independent veterinary pathologist experts at the SAC lab.

The SGA say that after hitting the fence the eagle “would then have undoubtedly tried to regain flight. This is consistent with the GPS signals which we were shown by the RSPB, which appeared to show variations in the readings. The readings do not show that the bird was “static” for 15 hours”. It seems that the SGA have a limited understanding of how to interpret GPS sat tag signals. The variations in the readings are entirely within the +/- 18m variation quoted by the manufacturer (Microwave Telemetry). In other words, all of the signals received during the 15 hour period in question were within an 18m circle radius. To all intents and purposes the bird was “static”. It’s up to the reader to decide whether the SGA’s interpretation of the satellite data is more authoritative than those of the sat tag manufacturer or the experienced biologists tracking this eagle.

The SGA say, “The RSPB state that the eagle could no longer become airborne. We disagree, having witnessed on several occasions various bird species gaining flight with leg injuries”. But it wasn’t the RSPB who said that the eagle could no longer become airborne, it was the independent veterinary pathologists at the SAC, who said the injuries were so severe “they would prevent the bird from being able to take off”. If anyone has ever watched a golden eagle take off they will know that the bird bends its legs to push off from the ground/perch. Clearly, two broken legs would prevent this from happening. The SGA suggest that the bird could have used the “advantageous slope of the ground” to “get air below its wings”. Actually the area where this bird was static for 15 hours is relatively flat – not on the edge of a high cliff where an injured bird might be able to roll off and find a thermal uplift. So, imagine an eagle with two broken legs on the flat ground – it will be lying on its side, back or front – do you think it could get airborne? It’s up to the reader to decide whether the SGA’s explanation is more plausible than that of the independent veterinary pathologist experts at the SAC lab.

The SGA say that the eagle could have flown 15km in the dark, tried to land but crashed into the tree and fell to its final resting place underneath a tree branch. This crash would, according to them, explain the eagle feathers found between the road lay-by and the dead eagle. Unfortunately the post mortem report doesn’t show any evidence of the eagle having crashed into a dense conifer tree. It’s up to the reader to decide whether the opinion of the SGA is more authoritative than that of the independent veterinary pathologist experts at the SAC lab.

To conclude then, the SGA’s version of what happened to this eagle was that it died as a result of a terrible accident. However, they haven’t been able to provide any convincing evidence and what they propose happened is not supported by the evidence provided by the independent veterinary pathology experts.

The RSPB’s reaction to the SGA’s report included this statement:

“This is a rather desperate statement from the SGA, which seemingly does more to reveal their nature as apologists for the worst types of wildlife crime, as they try to defend the indefensible. Indeed, it calls into question their very commitment to the aims and objectives of the partnership for Action Against Wildlife crime Scotland (PAWS)”.

It’s interesting (and obviously totally unrelated) to learn that in a recent meeting with the Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse, the SGA were told very clearly that they would not be issued with licences to kill raptors for the foreseeable future due to the ongoing incidents of criminal raptor persecution. According to the police, the case of this particular eagle obviously falls within that category.  

Unfortunately we’ll probably never find out who was responsible for this eagle’s death. Had a full police search, under warrant, taken place then further supporting evidence might have been retrieved. As it stands, it appears that this supposedly ‘on-going investigation’ is as dead as the eagle.

This bird will simply join the long list of other dead or ‘missing’ eagles whose killers have never been brought to justice: 26 eagles in six years at our last count, including ‘Alma’ who was found poisoned in 2009 on, er, this estate.

Prison officer Liddell pleads guilty to egg trading

At long last the case against Inverness prison officer Keith Liddell has finished. Today he pleaded guilty to the majority of the charges against him connected to the possession and trading of wild birds’ eggs. He is due to be sentenced on 9 April.

This case has dragged on and on and on, no doubt at considerable expense. For previous blog entries about Liddell’s case see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.

Article on today’s guilty pleas in Highland News here

RSPB press release on today’s guilty pleas here

Well done to all involved, especially wildlife fiscal Kate Fleming.

Poisoning stats down, incredulity up

Poisoning 2008-2012The ‘official’ 2012 incidents of confirmed poisoned raptors in Scotland have just been published and show a marked decline in the number of poisoning incidents. According to the latest figures, the number of reported poisoned raptors fell from 16 in 2011 to three in 2012 (one golden eagle and two buzzards).

PAW Scotland press release here

BBC news article here

Are these figures an accurate reflection of what’s going on? We don’t think so. In fact we know they’re not. What the latest poisoning maps fail to show is the number of poisoned baits that were discovered in 2012, the number of other bird species that were poisoned in 2012, and the number of other animals that were poisoned in 2012. And obviously the maps don’t show the poisoning incidents that went undetected/unreported in 2012.

We know for certain that missing from this map is a poisoning incident recorded in the ‘Border’ region in May 2012. According to the published SASA statistics, a poisoned raven and crow were found, along with meat bait and two rabbit baits. This incident is listed as being subject to an ‘on-going police investigation’. Notably, this incident was not reported in the press. Why not? More importantly, why is this incident missing from this map? Why is the focus just on the number of confirmed poisoned raptors? Yes, the illegal poisoning of raptors is of huge concern, but it’s not just raptors that are victim to this barbaric practice. By excluding the discovery of poisoned baits and other types of poisoned species, the wider picture is not being shown. Why is that?

For example, we also know from the SASA stats that a horse and a dog were poisoned with Strychnine in January 2012, a cat was poisoned with Carbofuran and Isofenphos in March 2012, and another cat was poisoned with Carbofuran and Isofenphos in July 2012. None of these incidents appear on this map. There may well be others but the published SASA stats only go up to September 2012 – there’s the customary six-month delay in publishing more recent incidents. Obviously it’s not in the public interest to know where and when lethal poison is being laid out until many months after the event.

On a similar note, has anyone noticed the dot on the map in the Whithorn region (SW Scotland)? Could this possibly be the dead buzzard we blogged about last week (see here)? All we were told was that a man had been arrested following an investigation into a dead buzzard that had been found on the Glasserton Estate. Why didn’t the police press statement mention that the forensic tests confirmed it had been poisoned? Why are we not warned when potentially lethal poisoned baits are being placed out in areas where we might visit with our children and our pets? Why is it so difficult to tell the public what’s actually going on?

On a superficial level then, the latest figures suggest that all those people who’ve been busily poisoning our raptors for the last 100+ years have suddenly stopped. It’s highly implausible, but of course it is possible. Other possibile explanations include (a) the illegal poisoners have just got better at hiding the evidence; (b) they’ve switched to a new type of poison that isn’t currently being screened for in the SASA lab; (c) they’ve switched from poisoning as their method of choice to other methods that are less detectable, such as shooting and trapping.

Fortunately, the authorities are wise to point (c). Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse said: “There has been real progress but we will not be complacent. I am determined to stamp out these practices once and for all and will remain vigilant to any change in approach being taken by those who seek to persecute raptors“. Of course, this statement is almost a carbon copy of statements made by previous Environment Ministers, going back several years, all of whom were ‘determined to stamp out illegal raptor persecution’ and all of whom failed. The current Minister has recently been presented with three perfect opportunities to make a stand: the dead golden eagle found on Deeside with two broken legs which is believed to have been caught in an illegal trap on an Angus grouse moor before being dumped further north away from the estate (we’ll be blogging more about this case in the next few days); the shot and critically injured golden eagle found on a grouse moor in Dumfries and Galloway; and the shot hen harrier that was found dead on another sporting estate in Grampian. It’ll be interesting to see how many more of these incidents he will tolerate before stronger sanctions are applied. Or, more to the point, how many more incidents we will allow him to tolerate.

Hawk and Owl Trust: official statement on their exit from hen harrier dialogue

HOT2Further to our blog earlier this month about the Hawk and Owl Trust becoming the third conservation group to walk out of the Hen Harrier Dialogue process (see here), soon after similar exits by the Northern England Raptor Forum (here) and the RSPB (here), the Hawk and Owl Trust have just issued the following press release to clarify their position:

The Hawk and Owl Trust (HOT) has resigned from Environment Council’s Hen Harrier Dialogue process: President of HOT, wildlife presenter Chris Packham calls for a firm stand against the persecution of birds of prey.

The Hawk and Owl Trust, as the last pro-raptor body participating in the discussion group the Hen Harrier Dialogue process, set up by the Environment Council back in 2006 to bring together those with an interest in the future of the Hen Harrier in England, have decided to leave the Dialogue process.

The Trust cite the lack of any progress or willingness of the grouse moor owners and their representatives to recognise the existence of raptor persecution in any meaningful way; despite solid scientific evidence to prove lethal persecution exists. This type of persecution is illegal under British law yet is widespread to this day. See the case of young female Hen Harrier ‘Bowland Betty’ as an example.

The Hawk and Owl Trust are joining fellow conservation organisations, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) who left the dialogue last summer, and the Northern England Raptor Forum (NERF) who left recently for the same reasons.                       

Nearly seven years of dialogue and numerous meetings have resulted in the appalling fact that, due to persecution, 2012 saw only one breeding pair of Hen Harriers in the whole of England, despite the habitat being available for some 300 breeding pairs.

As President of HOT, wildlife presenter Chris Packham speaks out on behalf of the Trust:

“The Hawk and Owl Trust feels that it is completely unacceptable for any bird of prey to be killed – and should remain absolutely illegal” says Chris. “It is time for all who want to make Britain a better place for birds of prey to take a firm stand.”

Patient dialogue has failed, so HOT will be joining other conservation bodies in looking for other more effective ways to end the wholesale slaughter of our birds of prey and the Hen Harrier in particular. The illegal persecution of birds of prey must stop and those with a commercial interest in grouse moor shooting must be made to put their house in order. 

Hawk and Owl Trust website here

Well done to the Hawk and Owl Trust, as well as to NERF and the RSPB. It’s great to see these organisations taking a stand. If, like them, you want to see grouse moor owners and gamekeepers being held to account for the continuing criminal persecution of hen harriers and other raptors, you too can take a stand. Please sign this e-petition calling for a licensing scheme and get your friends to do the same: SIGN HERE

If you don’t know what happens to hen harriers on grouse moors, take a look at this photograph – this male hen harrier was caught by the legs in an illegally-set spring trap on a Scottish grouse moor. Fortunately he was discovered by raptor workers before the person who set the trap came back to kill him, perhaps by shooting him, or maybe bludgeoning him with a heavy stick, or perhaps just kicking him to death.

HH 2ndtrap6a

 

 

New legislation to protect golden eagle, hen harrier & red kite in Scotland

WCA variation schedules Scotland 2013New legislation designed to provide greater legal protection in Scotland to golden eagles, hen harriers and red kites comes into force next Saturday (16th March 2013).

The Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (Variation of Schedules A1 and 1A) (Scotland) Order 2013 was signed by Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse on 4th Feb and laid before the Scottish Parliament on 6th Feb.

These Schedules (A1 and 1A) were added to the Wildlife & Countryside Act via the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004, which means that, unfortunately, this legislation only applies in Scotland.

Schedule A1 lists birds species whose nests [that are habitually used] are protected at all times from being taken, damaged, destroyed or otherwise interfered with, including outside of the breeding season. Anyone intentionally or recklessly doing any of the above has committed an offence. To date, only the white-tailed eagle has been listed on Schedule A1.

Schedule 1A lists bird species which are protected from harassment. Species listed on this Schedule are considered to be at risk of harassment that is intended to prevent them from breeding. Anyone  intentionally or recklessly harassing a species listed on this Schedule has committed an offence. To date, only the white-tailed eagle has been listed on Schedule 1A.

Following a government consultation in 2008-2009 (!), three more species will be included as of next Saturday:

Schedule A1 (protected nests and nest sites): white-tailed eagle; golden eagle

Schedule 1A (birds protected from harassment at any time, not just during breeding season): white-tailed sea eagle; golden eagle; hen harrier; red kite

It seems strange that the hen harrier hasn’t been listed on Schedule A1, given the known issues with deliberate nest destruction, as indeed with the goshawk. Nevertheless, it’s good to see greater protection for golden eagles, hen harriers and red kites, even though this is only ‘paper protection’ – the problem with enforcement of the legislation still remains.

A copy of the new legislation can be read here: Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981 (Variation of Schedules A1 and 1A) (Scotland) Order 2013

Leadhills: the end of a terrible era?

Hopetoun Estates - LeadhillsWe’re hearing persistent rumours, from several sources, that Leadhills Sporting Ltd are leaving their shooting tenancy on the Leadhills (Hopetoun) and Buccleuch Estates.

Some say they’ve already gone, others say they’re in the process of leaving, and another says they’ll be gone ‘before the end of the year’.

Have they chosen to leave of their own accord or were they forced out? Is the company disbanding or simply changing name? Are they taking a tenancy somewhere else or just calling it a day? Will Leadhills (Hopetoun) Estate lease the grouse moor to another group? Definitely one to watch.

Let’s hope the rumours are true and we see a change on these moors. It’s long long long overdue.

If you don’t know what’s been going on in this area for the last decade, click on the ‘Leadhills Estate’ tag in the right-hand column.

Arrest after dead buzzard found on Glasserton Estate

Dumfries and Galloway Constabulary have arrested and bailed a 62 year old man from Whithorn in relation to a number of offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, following an investigation into the death of a buzzard, which was discovered on the Glasserton Estate, Whithorn, in December 2012. The case has been the subject of a detailed police investigation which included a forensic examination of the dead bird.

We don’t have any further details at the moment. Thanks to the journalist at Express newspapers for passing this info on to us.

If you think gamekeepers should be held to account under a licensing scheme, please sign this e-petition: HERE