Author: RaptorPersecutionUK

Supplementary evidence on snares from Scottish Animal Welfare Commission

The Scottish Animal Welfare Commission (SAWC) has submitted supplementary evidence to the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee on the issue of snaring, as a follow up to last week’s evidence session as the Committee prepares its Stage 1 report on the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill.

Dead fox found in a snare. Photo: Scottish SPCA

The SAWC has provided this supplementary evidence because it wasn’t given the opportunity to challenge various claims that were made during last week’s evidence session, particularly the oft-repeated statement that so-called ‘humane cable restraints’ (just a re-branded snare) meet the required standards of the Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) for restraining traps.

The SAWC points out that this claim isn’t supported because ‘foxes are not one of the species covered by the AIHTS’ but even if they were, the AIHTS for restraining traps are ‘considered to be low and have been widely criticised by wildlife biologists, conservationists and animal welfare organisations’.

The SAWC’s supplementary evidence can be read here:

wildlife-bill-sawc-letter-to-committee-10-november-2023Download

Now you might think that this supplementary evidence is redundant given that Environment Minister Gillian Martin MSP has since announced her intention to push forward with a complete ban on all snares, but the proposed ban is still a long way from the statute book.

Besides, the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee should have ALL the available evidence in front of it as it prepares its Stage 1 report, although I can’t imagine anyone is expecting an especially supportive Stage 1 report given the Committee is dominated by several MSPs whose obvious disdain for the proposed Bill has been only too apparent over recent months. Indeed, it is chaired by Conservative MSP Finlay Carson who in May this year reportedly told a GWCT-hosted grouse symposium that the Bill amounts to “unnecessary legislation“, and that was before he’d even heard the evidence he was responsible for scrutinising!

It’s clear from media reports that the grouse-shooting lobby intends to challenge the proposed snare ban as the Bill reaches the Scottish Parliament for debate at stage 2 and I dare say that various MSPs have already been briefed on amendments they could make.

For this reason, the SAWC’s supplementary evidence will be crucial to challenge the predicted line that ‘humane cable restraints’ meet international welfare standards.

The stage 1 debate for this Bill is scheduled for 29 November 2023. This debate (by the whole Parliament) is simply to decide whether the general principles of the Bill should be accepted and progressed. Stage 2 is when proposed changes (amendments) can be made and that’s when the debate will heat up.

Reactions to Chris Packham’s successful libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd & journalist Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke

Last week, Chris Packham won his libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd and one of its journalists, Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke, after the company admitted to publishing false and defamatory material about Chris in 2022 (see here and here).

Photo by Ruth Tingay

This was a related but separate libel claim to the proceedings Chris won earlier this year against Dominic Wightman and Nigel Bean for defamatory material published by Country Squire Magazine between 2020-2021 (see here).

Responding to the settlement of the case last week, Chris has published the following video:

In this latest libel case, Fieldsports Channel Ltd admitted it was responsible for the false and defamatory publications, submitted an apology to the court for publishing such “baseless and damaging allegations of dishonesty” that “fell far below the standards expected of responsible, impartial journalists” (see here) and agreed to pay £30,000 in damages and costs, £10,000 of which has already been paid.

Interesting, then, (and the irony of this is not lost on me) that the following day an inaccurate article appeared in the Daily Mail (natch) that suggested that Chris had ‘sued the wrong company’ and ‘may not see a penny’ of the award:

This article leads to an interesting position. Either the Daily Mail journalist has been (a) misinformed or (b) has misunderstood the details of the case, resulting in the publication of an inaccurate article, or Fieldsports Channel Ltd has provided the court with an inaccurate account of the status of its various entities.

Chris’s legal team is considering all avenues.

UPDATE 28th November 2023: Daily Mail published apology to Chris Packham for inaccurate reporting of his libel win against Fieldsports Channel Ltd here

Bye then (again), Therese Coffey

Environment Secretary Therese Coffey has left the [DEFRA] building, again, and has left the Cabinet, too. Good riddance.

The last time she left DEFRA was in 2019 and I wrote this about her departure.

My opinion, shared by many of my friends and colleagues, of her massive underperformance in her previous role at DEFRA and her most recent role as Secretary of State for the Environment, hasn’t changed. Apparent indifference to environmental challenges will be her legacy.

Coffey’s self-congratulatory resignation letter to Rishi Sunak is the epitome of this quote by Swami Paramananda:

Fools dwelling in ignorance, yet imagining themselves wise and learned, go round and round in crooked ways, like the blind led by the blind.

letter_from_the_rt_hon_therese_coffey_mp_to_the_prime_ministerDownload

There’s so much laugh-out-loud material in her letter, not to mention an off the scale score on the delusion rating, but perhaps the most telling line will be this:

“While there is more I could write about what I am proud of having achieved in government, I have always been most proud in representing my constituents of Suffolk Coastal and acting on local issues“.

I wonder if she’s referring to any role she might have played in these shenanigans, currently the focus of a Wild Justice investigation? More on that shortly…

Sunak’s response to Coffey’s resignation is here:

letter_from_the_prime_minister_to_the_rt_hon_therese_coffey_mpDownload

And what of her successor, Steve Barclay? Described on the news channels this evening as having been ‘demoted’ from Health Secretary to Environment Secretary (why on earth is this role considered a demotion??!), I’ve failed to find any evidence of his experience, or interest, in the environment.

Conservation and anti-conservation organisations alike have been falling over themselves to send him congratulatory tweets, which seems a bit odd. Who congratulates anyone on a demotion, perceived or real?

I’m kidding. Of course it’s obvious why they all want to ingratiate themselves because Westminster’s environmental policy has, for years, been based on handing out favours for mates, not on actual scientific evidence or even common sense.

Will Barclay be any different? I doubt it, but he at least deserves to be given an opportunity to demonstrate his intentions.

Three quarters of Scots are against grouse moor land management practices

Press release from REVIVE, the coalition for grouse moor reform (10 Nov 2023):

Three quarters of Scots are against grouse moor land management practices

Meanwhile six times more Scots are against grouse shooting than support it

New polling has revealed three quarters of Scots are against grouse moor land management practices.

The figures have been released ahead of REVIVE’s National Conference – Changing the Face of Scotland – hosted by wildlife expert, TV presenter and conservationist, Chris Packham. The conference keynote address will be delivered by Lorna Slater, Minister for Green Skills, Circular Economy and Biodiversity.

The polling commissioned by the League Against Cruel Sports on behalf of REVIVE, and carried out by the Diffley Partnership show the use of predator control on grouse moors is opposed by over three quarters (76%) of the public, with 73% opposed to the practice of muirburn to change the landscape to ensure there are more grouse available for shooting. Both these practices are supported by just one in ten people. The figures also show six in ten people oppose grouse shooting, with only 13% supporting it.

Campaign Manager for REVIVE Max Wiszniewski said: “Grouse shooting is a sport enjoyed by a tiny minority of Scots, and the public are now strenuously voicing their opposition to a bloodsport which takes over a disproportionate amount of the Scottish countryside, for little economic gain, for the pleasure of just a few.

“These latest figures back REVIVE’s position, even if there is ever any legitimate reasons for predator control or muirburn, increasing grouse numbers for sport is not one of them. The public heavily backs us on this.

“This weekend’s national conference will bring together the country’s leading wildlife, biodiversity and land reform experts to explore how we change the face of Scotland, for the good of our wildlife, our environment and our people.”

The conference which is expected to attract over 700 delegates will look at issues surrounding intensive grouse moor management in Scotland and debate whether forthcoming legislation will go far enough to protect wildlife and the environment. Speakers include journalist, broadcaster and campaigner, Lesley Riddoch; RSPB Scotland’s Head of Investigations, Ian Thomson; Mark Diffley from the Diffley Partnership; Jessica Findlay, Moorland Licencing Manager for NatureScot; Ruth Tingay from Raptor Persecution UK; and others.

Chris Packham added: “This conference comes at a crucial time for nature as the Scottish Parliament is deciding how to tackle the biodiversity and climate crisis while grouse shooting continues to exacerbate both.

“Intensive grouse moor management is unsustainable and the Scottish Government seem genuine in their desire to end the killing of Scotland’s birds of prey – a crime commonly associated with grouse shooting.”

Mark Diffley, Founder and Director of the Diffley Partnership which conducted the polling said: “This is our fourth poll for Revive which looks at public perceptions to grouse shooting and predator control. As with previous years we find that the majority of Scots oppose both, with 60% opposing grouse shooting and 76% against predator control. Interestingly, opposition is strong across all ages, social classes and geographic areas of the country. Elsewhere, the practices of using traps and ‘muirburn’ on moors are supported by a majority of Scots, except where they are used to enhance grouse numbers for shooting where the vast majority oppose the practices.”

The conference takes place on Sunday 12th November at the Perth Concert Hall.

ENDS

Gamebird shooters furious at Minister’s proposed snare ban in Scotland

Following yesterday’s news that Environment Minister Gillian Martin MSP is pressing on with a proposed full ban on all snares, with no intention of including a licensing scheme (here), the game-shooting industry has reacted with predictable fury.

Imagine being angry about banning a device that can cause so much suffering and distress to any animal unfortunate to encounter it.

This snared badger suffered horrific injuries. Photo: NE Essex Badger Group

Although to be honest, their fury seems to derive from the fact that they didn’t get their way. This self-entitled retort from grouse moor lobby group Scottish Land & Estates (SLE) is quite telling:

“Perhaps what is most exasperating is the timing of this decision – which comes just 24 hours after representatives of Scotland’s land management community gave evidence to the Rural Affairs and Islands Committee on the subject.

“It is not unreasonable to suggest that any meaningful consideration of that evidence at the Ministerial level would take longer, and it rather feels like yesterday’s evidence session was a meaningless exercise. It is especially frustrating given the time, effort and preparation that goes into engaging with the democratic process“.

What SLE fails to comprehend is that the issue of snaring has been in front of Scottish Ministers time and time and time again, over a period of many years.

The argument that snares are inherently cruel isn’t a new one and the current Environment Minister hasn’t just made up her mind in a 24 hour period, as suggested by SLE. She has spent several months examining the evidence since her appointment in June 2023 and, rather graciously I thought, allowed SLE additional time to present a last-ditch proposal for the licensing of snares.

That proposal wasn’t good enough, clearly (and as I’ve written previously, it didn’t offer anything new anyway) and the evidence session on Wednesday simply repeated all the previous arguments without bringing anything new to the table. Oh, apart from an apparent ‘survey’ of 129 land managers which resulted in a claimed 98% of them believing that a snare ban would be bad for biodiversity. That’s not compelling evidence, I’m afraid, and given how the industry still refers to snare victims as ‘vermin’, their claimed concern for ‘biodiversity’ isn’t credible either.

A ban on snares will not prevent gamekeepers from killing foxes. In some, limited circumstances, there is justification for some form of control (although I don’t accept that the protection of gamebirds is justifiable) but there is simply no justification whatsoever for killing them in such a brutal, barbaric manner as snaring.

The bigger picture, as mentioned by OneKind’s CEO Bob Elliot during Wednesday’s evidence session, and which should really be the focus of attention, is the release of millions of non-native gamebirds into the countryside for shooting, and the management of land to create artificially high numbers of red grouse, also for shooting. If the industry sorted that out then perhaps the density and abundance of foxes in these areas wouldn’t be so high.

Here’s the astoundingly arrogant letter sent to the Minister by SLE yesterday, in response to her decision to ban all snares:

Meanwhile, the Scottish Government has published its analysis of the consultation responses held over the summer, in which it sought the public’s views on a snare ban and on extending the powers of the Scottish SPCA. The headlines are that 70% of respondents agreed with the proposal for a ban on ALL snare types (including so-called ‘Humane Cable Restraints’) and 73% of respondents did not want any exceptions to a full ban on the use of snares:

wildlife-management-muirburn-scotland-bill-use-snares-powers-scottish-spca-inspectors-analysis-responses-consultation-exerciseDownload

Also just published is further evidence from the Scottish SPCA, as requested during Wednesday’s evidence session, on the number of recent snaring incidents in Scotland, which show that non-target species continue to be caught and injured in snares, including snares that have been legally, as well as illegally, set:

wildlife-bill-submission-sspca_incidents_nov2023Download

Breaking news…Scottish Environment Minister proposes full ban on all snares

Breaking news…..

Scottish Environment Minister Gillian Martin MSP has informed the Rural Affairs Committee that she intends to call for a full ban on ALL snares (including so-called ‘Humane Cable Restraints’) and will not endorse a licensing scheme for any purpose.

The Minister’s letter to the Committee (see below) comes after two recent evidence sessions as part of the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Bill, which is currently at Stage 1 of its progression through the Scottish Parliament:

wildlife-bill-full-ban-on-snaring-9-november-2023Download

As I’ve written previously, the grouse shooting lobby has made last-ditch attempts to avoid a full ban and had recently proposed a licensing scheme (see here), which was discussed at length during yesterday’s evidence session (here).

I’m delighted that the Minister has seen through all the snorting entitlement on display yesterday and has put the welfare of wildlife at the centre of her proposal.

Let’s hope a full ban will also lead to the end of ‘stink pits‘ (also known as ‘middens’)- piles of rotting animal carcasses, encircled by snares, designed to attract more wildlife into a centralised kill zone.

Huge congratulations to the individuals and organisations who have campaigned so hard for this, over many, many years, especially Libby Anderson (Scottish Animal Welfare Commission), League Against Cruel Sports, OneKind, Scottish Badgers, Revive and the Scottish SPCA.

There’s no doubt that the Minister’s proposal will be challenged by snare-users as the Bill progresses but let’s hope that the view of the majority of MSPs is based in the 21st Century and not the 18th.

Snared fox. Photo contributed by blog reader
Snared red deer. Photo contributed by blog reader
hanged-by-the-feet-until-deadDownload

UPDATE 10th November 2023: Gamebird shooters furious at Minister’s proposed snare ban in Scotland (here)

Over 600 attendees expected at REVIVE’s conference on Sunday – tickets still available

REVIVE, the coalition for grouse moor reform, is holding its annual conference this Sunday (12 November) at Perth Concert Hall.

Hosted by Chris Packham, over 600 attendees have booked to hear from a wide range of expert speakers, including two Scottish Government Ministers (Lorna Slater MSP and Gillian Martin MSP).

The event really couldn’t be better timed as the Scottish Parliament prepares to debate the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Bill (known colloquially as the Grouse Moor Reform Bill) at Stage 1 of its passage through Parliament.

Here’s the REVIVE conference programme:

Tickets to attend are still available (sales close this Friday, 10 Nov), here.

I look forward to seeing some of you there!

Stakeholders to give evidence tomorrow on Scottish Government’s proposed snare ban & extended powers for SSPCA

Tomorrow (Weds 8 November 2023) will see another evidence session in front of the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee on the Scottish Government’s proposed ban on all snares and a proposed extension of powers for the Scottish SPCA.

This is all part of the Committee’s scrutiny of the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Bill. For new blog readers, this is the Bill that has been introduced by the Scottish Government in response to the recommendations made in the 2019 Werritty Review and is designed to bring in licensing for grouse moor management and introduce measures to put an end to the illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors.

Last week the Committee heard evidence from Environment Minister Gillian Martin MSP. The video archive of that session can be seen here and the transcript can be read here.

Tomorrow’s session will include evidence from various stakeholders, first on the issue of a snare ban, and then on increased SSPCA powers, as follows:

SNARING BAN panel:

INCREASED POWERS FOR SCOTTISH SPCA panel:

I think it’s fair to predict, given the participants listed for both panels, that there’ll be very little support for the proposed snare ban and for extended powers for the SSPCA, except from Libby Anderson, Bob Elliot, Mike Flynn and Ian Thomson.

We already know the position of each organisation on these issues because it’s been talked to death in previous evidence sessions held earlier this summer (and prior to that, multiple times over the last ten years as these topics have been raised again and again). For whatever reason, it’s been decided that the Committee needs to hear from everyone again, simply because the Scottish Government held yet another public consultation this year (which resulted in overwhelming public support for a ban on all snares and for increased powers for the SSPCA – see here).

This’ll just be yet another opportunity for the grouse shooting lobby to claim that rural Armageddon will befall the Scottish countryside if barbaric snares that cause animal suffering are banned and if the SSPCA are permitted to investigate the wildlife crimes that seem to happen on a lot of driven grouse moors.

You can watch proceedings live on Scottish Parliament TV (here) and there’ll be a video archive and a transcript available shortly afterwards.

The session begins at 9am on Wednesday morning although the Committee is dealing with two other items on the agenda before these panels start.

UPDATE: Video archive of the session available to watch HERE

UPDATE: Transcript of the evidence sessions available here (from p27):

officialreport-rural-affairs-mtg-8nov2023Download

UPDATE 9 November 2023: Scottish Environment Minister proposes full ban on all snares (here)

UPDATE 15 November 2023: Supplementary evidence on snares from Scottish Animal Welfare Committee (here)

Court transcript from Packham v Fieldsports Channel Ltd & Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke (libel action)

As reported, yesterday Chris Packham won his libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd and one of their journalists, Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke and has been awarded substantial damages (here).

Photo by Fabian Harrison

The case concluded with a statement read out in court in front of Mr Justice Griffiths, as follows:

final-statement-in-open-court-6-nov-2023-packham-v-fieldsportsDownload

Today there has been what I will describe as ‘an interesting statement’ in the press by one of the defendants. I won’t repeat it here but suffice to say, Chris’s legal team is examining it.

Further developments in this case may arise as a consequence. I’ll report them here when I’m able.

UPDATE 14th November 2023: Reactions to Chris Packham’s successful libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd & journalist Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke here

Chris Packham wins libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd & Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke

Press release from Leigh Day (6 November 2023)

Chris Packham settles defamation claim with Fieldsports Channel after it admits death threat claims were untrue.

Environmental campaigner and naturalist Chris Packham CBE has settled a defamation claim against the website Fieldsports Channel after it falsely accused him of writing a fake death threat letter to himself.

The online shooting and hunting channel has agreed to pay Mr Packham substantial damages and contribute to his legal costs as well as provide an undertaking never to repeat the allegation.

In June 2022, Fieldsports Channel and one of its journalists, Ben O’Rourke, published an online video and article alleging the TV presenter had written a fake death threat letter to himself and lied about it being sent by an anonymous third party. The serious allegation was not put to Mr Packham directly to offer him right of reply.

In bringing the claim against Fieldsports Channel Ltd and Mr O’Rourke, Mr Packham’s lawyers argued the allegations were plainly baseless and had caused him enormous reputational damage and distress. They pointed out that the only possible basis for the allegation was handwriting analysis of the letter which has since been comprehensively discredited.

Of particular concern to Mr Packham was the implication he had lied to his family about the death threat, knowing it would cause them considerable anxiety. Also, that he had lied to, and knowingly wasted the time of, Hampshire Police, who investigated the letter and on whom he relies for his and his family’s safety.

Mr Packham’s distress was later compounded by Fieldsports Channel’s derisive response to his claim, in particular mounting caricatures of his head on a “trophy wall” at the British Shooting Show in February 2023. Mr Packham has been the victim of arson attacks and has received numerous death threats, and he considers its actions to have been utterly reckless and irresponsible in that context.

As well as paying Mr Packham substantial damages and contributing to his legal costs, Fieldsports Channel and Mr O’Rourke have agreed never to repeat the allegation and will publish a legal statement, which is also to be read in the High Court on 6 November 2023, explaining the matter on its platforms.

Mr Packham was represented by Mr Jonathan Price and Ms Claire Overman of Doughty Street Chambers, who are instructed by partner Tessa Gregory and solicitor Carol Day of law firm Leigh Day.

Chris Packham said:

“Fieldsports TV displayed a complete contempt of even the basic codes of real journalism. They allowed a vicious vendetta to drive a targeted catalogue of lies in an attempt to destroy my credibility, integrity and reputation. Further, even when involved in this litigation they recklessly posted images of myself contrived to fuel hatred amongst fire-arms owners when they knew I was already the victim of targeted attacks from members of this community. They also failed to show any respect for the legal process. As a consequence, Fieldsports TV have now issued a full apology and agreed to pay substantial costs and damages. My message is clear – if anyone publishes or perpetuates lies about me or my conduct I will challenge them and I will win.”

Carol Day, solicitor at law firm Leigh Day said:

“Our client Mr Packham was the subject of an egregious slur against his reputation based on the flimsiest of evidence that failed to stand up to even the most basic form of scrutiny. To be accused of writing a fake death threat to himself, with all the consequences that brings for his family and the authorities, was a highly damaging attack on Mr Packham’s integrity. The fact he was then mocked publicly for objecting to these defamatory remarks shows how little regard the defendants had for the reputation of others. Our client can only hope that lessons have been learned from this sorry episode and it brings an end to these gratuitous attacks on Mr Packham’s character by people who simply disagree with his views.”

 ENDS

UPDATE 7th November 2023: Court transcript from Packham v Fieldsports Channel Ltd & Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke [libel action] here.

UPDATE 14th November 2023: Reactions to Chris Packham’s successful libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd & journalist Andrew (Ben) O’Rourke here

UPDATE 28th November 2023: Daily Mail published apology to Chris Packham for inaccurate reporting of his libel win against Fieldsports Channel Ltd here

UPDATE 10 December 2023: Shooting Times forced to publish apology to Chris Packham for inaccurate reporting of his successful libel action against Fieldsports Channel Ltd (here)