Blog

GWCT’s ‘best practice guidelines’ for medicating red grouse are actually illegal

Well, well, well.

The Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT), “the leading UK charity conducting conservation science to enhance the British countryside for public benefit” (their words, not ours), have been promoting ‘best practice guidelines’ that are actually illegal.

In an illuminating blog on Mark Avery’s website today (see here), Natural England has clarified the legal position of when, and how, wild red grouse may be caught and treated with anti-parasitic wormer drugs. This stemmed from questions that were raised in a previous blog on Mark’s site (see here) and also from questions we raised a few days ago (see here).

direct-dosing

Natural England has confirmed that red grouse may only be caught (in England) for direct dosing during the shooting season, and they may not be caught at night by using spotlights to dazzle (stun) the birds, nor may nets be used. NE categorically states that red grouse are not to be caught in the closed season (Dec 11 – August 11) for the purpose of medication.

Compare this with the GWCT’s ‘best practice guidelines’ for the direct dosing of red grouse: strongylosis-control-in-red-grouse_GCT 2004 which advises on the techniques that can be used for catching red grouse at night (spotlights and nets) and the timing of such captures, “through the winter months and into the early spring“.

Ooops.

The GWCT may argue that these ‘best practice guidelines’ were published way back in 2004, prior to NE publishing their official advice on this issue in 2012 (see here). That would be true, but their ‘best practice guidelines’ were still illegal practices in 2004 (didn’t they research the legalities before publishing their guidelines?) and these ‘best practice guidelines’ are still available on the GWCT website today (see here).

‘Best practice’ guidelines imply that the topic has been thoroughly researched and the subsequent advice is considered the most appropriate, and importantly, that it complies with the legislation. In this case, it doesn’t.

And that’s not all. The GWCT’s ‘best practice guidelines’ for the direct dosing of red grouse encourage grouse moor managers (gamekeepers) to mark the birds that have been treated. That makes sense, because gamekeepers will need to know whether a bird they’ve just caught has already received the drugs. However, the GWCT suggests that birds be marked with a ‘numbered wing tag or a numbered leg ring’. But anybody wanting to fit a leg ring to a wild bird in the UK must first be a qualified ringer with a permit from the BTO, which takes years of specialist training (see here). To fit a wing tag, the person must also have an endorsement on their ringer’s permit allowing them to attach ‘unconventional markers’ to a bird. How many gamekeepers do you think hold a BTO ringer’s permit AND a special endorsement for fitting wing tags? It would be easy to find out – all BTO licensed ringers are required to submit annual returns detailing the birds that have been ringed and if they don’t, their permits are not renewed. We could ask the BTO how many returns they’ve had for red grouse ringing and marking. And while we’re on the subject of permits, what sort of training/qualification is required for somebody to administer a controlled veterinary drug to a wild animal? Surely five years of vet school, no?

The more you look at the grouse shooting industry, the more you realise what they’ve been able to get away with without anybody scrutinising their activities. This industry uses the guise of ‘best practice’ guidelines to imply that they’re all working within the law, constantly re-appraising their methods to ensure that they’re meeting the high-standard regulations. It turns out that’s utter tosh, and the GWCT is at the forefront of it.

Ban driven grouse shooting – please sign here

The photograph (from the GWCT’s best practice guidelines document) shows a red grouse caught at night having an anti-parasitic wormer drug forced down its throat.

Educating the 21st Century gamekeeper – with 19th Century ignorance

We often hear (from the shooting industry) about how well qualified young gamekeepers are these days and how these young men & women are so much better informed than their predecessors. Two years ago there was a parliamentary motion put forward to recognise the need for ‘well-trained young gamekeepers’ and the value of responsible gamekeeping to Scotland’s economy and biodiversity (see here), and this year, the SGA’s Young Gamekeeper of the Year Award was presented by none other than the Environment Minister (see here).

SGA Chairman Alex Hogg has hailed the Scottish colleges involved (see here), and apparently all graduates must pass key tests in various areas and have an understanding of conservation.

Sounds good, right?

One of the colleges offering qualifications in gamekeeping is Borders College. They have a webpage headed: ‘Educating the 21st Century Gamekeeper’ (see here).

Imagine our surprise, then, when we were sent the following image, captured from Facebook two days ago:

Garry Dickson

In case you can’t read it, here is the comment written by Garry Dickson about protected native goshawks:

“Aye, it’s a pity that here in Scotland they predate our native reds as well. SNH should extract the digit and allow keepers to control raptors as well as badgers. Our reds are hanging on by the skin of their teeth“.

Who’s Garry Dickson? He’s a lecturer on the gamekeeping course at Borders College.

Is this the sort of ill-informed, unsubstantiated nonsense he’s teaching to young gamekeeping students at Borders College? Mind you, if they don’t hear it from their lecturer they’ll probably hear it from the SGA – Alex Hogg shared his ignorance on goshawks a couple of years ago – see here.

It’s no surprise that the goshawk is listed as a wildlife crime priority species (because of the extent of persecution against it) if armies of young gamekeeping graduates are being let loose in the countryside after being taught such moronic 19th Century prejudice.

Free chemotherapy when you eat red grouse

Further to our expose earlier this year on the unregulated use of medicated grit to treat parasitic worms in red grouse and how this pharmaceutical drug could be getting in to the human food chain  (see here), this practice is now coming under further scrutiny, much to the annoyance of the GWCT.

Two guest blogs on Mark Avery’s blog (see here and here) provide reports from a recent GWCT grouse seminar where this topic was discussed.

It seems that in addition to the unregulated use of medicated grit on grouse moors across the UK uplands, the direct dosing of red grouse with another powerful drug has been a regular feature of grouse moor management for years, and the drug being used turns out to be one used in chemotherapy for victims of colon cancer.

You might expect that the use of this drug (Levamisole hydrochloride) would be closely monitored….but then again, if you’ve been following the medicated grit scandal, you probably won’t be surprised to learn that not only is its use un-monitored, but the statutory agencies (Natural England & SNH) actually permit its use during the grouse-shooting season.

That’s incredible! Legally, there should be a period of at least 28 days between the time the drug is administered (forced down the grouse’s throat with a tube) and the time that bird is available to be shot. This period allows for the drug to pass through the grouse and ‘disappear’ so that when the grouse is shot and it enters the human food chain, there should be no trace of the drug. So technically (legally), all medication should end by the middle of July, prior to the start of the grouse-shooting season on 12th August. But according to Natural England, medication can only legally be given DURING the grouse-shooting season! Eh? SNH also allows for grouse to be medicated during the shooting season.

So, if you eat red grouse not only might you find yourself eating poisonous toxic lead from the ammunition used to kill the bird, and an anti-parasitic wormer drug given to the grouse via medicated grit, but you might also get a free dose of chemotherapy! So much for the claims of red grouse being ‘healthy and natural’ to eat, as SNH and the Environment Minister told us earlier this year (see here and here).

It’s no wonder the Director of Research at GWCT, Professor Nick Sotherton, told the audience at the grouse seminar that he wanted to keep all this ‘under the radar’ so as not to alert the authorities. Ooops….

Peregrine shot dead at edge of grouse moor

A peregrine falcon has been found shot dead in County Durham.

It was discovered on the south east edge of Stang Forest on 23rd August 2015. A post mortem revealed it had been shot.

Stang Forest shot perg - Copy

It’s interesting to look at the land management around Stang Forest. Google maps shows it’s almost entirely surrounded by grouse moors. This shouldn’t come as a surprise to anybody, especially when we recently learned that peregrines are being wiped out on grouse moors across the UK (see here and here).

Durham Constabulary are appealing for information, four months later.

Article on Rare Bird Alert here

Stang Forest - Copy

Game farmer Michael Wood wins appeal against pole trap conviction

In February this year we blogged about the conviction of game farmer Michael Wood, who was found guilty of permitting the use of a pole trap at his game-rearing facility Westfield Farm in Cropton, North Yorkshire (see here).

Mr Wood’s conviction was based on the magistrate’s opinion that it was “inconceivable” that Wood had not known about the trap, as RSPB surveillance evidence outlined how he had driven past this exposed trap and also another (with the safety catch engaged) a short distance away. Wood had basically claimed it was getting too dark to be able to see the traps. His evidence was contradicted by his wife who outlined the things her husband was checking as he drove around the site.

However, Mr Wood appealed the verdict and the judicial bench at York Crown Court has now upheld his appeal because ‘the prosecution had failed to prove its case’ (see article in today’s Gazette & Herald here).

This is an interesting case. The most interesting feature (from our perspective) is that the RSPB’s surveillance evidence was deemed admissible. At the original trial the defence tried unsuccessfully to have this evidence excluded. At the appeal this was not even contested, neither this time were the actual light levels as shown by photographs taken by the RSPB. Unsurprisingly, Mr Wood’s wife did not give evidence at the appeal. So, it appears the admissibility of the RSPB evidence was NOT an issue at the Crown Court. Mr Wood’s appeal was successful because the prosecution were not able to convince the court that Wood had actually seen the trap, not that he’d been covertly observed driving close to the traps. That’s a very important distinction.

What’s also interesting about this case is that, following the day Wood was seen on site, the North Yorkshire Police, assisted by RSPB, seized a total of five illegal pole traps found set around the breeding facility. However, two employees only received a police caution in relation to these traps – they weren’t prosecuted for setting them. As they’d been cautioned, this infers that they’d admitted to setting them. Why weren’t they prosecuted for setting these illegal traps, if they’d admitted their guilt? In 2014 a gamekeeper on the Swinton Estate (also in North Yorkshire) was convicted of twice setting a pole trap (see here), so how did Mr Wood’s two employees escape prosecution when they’d set five pole traps between them?!

If you look at the position of the traps (see the photo and see the short video made by the RSPB Investigations team here), you can see how discreetly positioned they were. They must have been really easy to miss, eh?

pole-trap-1-of-5-westfield-game-farm-rspb

As we reported in February, Mr Wood has a current criminal conviction for wildlife offences. In 2011 he was successfully prosecuted for releasing thousands of pheasants (for shooting) on a site of special scientific interest when permission had only been granted to release 500 birds. It was argued the birds had caused ‘significant damage’ to the conservation area and Mr Wood and Yorks Sports Ltd (of which Mr Wood was a director) were each fined £20,000, plus £125,000 between them towards the prosecution costs, and they also had to pay a £145,000 defence bill (see here).

Sporting agent on Cardross Estate convicted in latest vicarious liability case

Press release from the Crown Office:

A self-employed game farmer has pled guilty to wildlife offences, leading to the second conviction in Scotland by vicarious liability for wildlife crime against wild birds.

At Stirling Sheriff Court, Graham Christie was fined a total of £3,200 after admitting his liability for the crimes committed by James O’Reilly, a gamekeeper employed by him.

O’Reilly was previously sentenced to a community payback order after pleading guilty to intentionally trapping and injuring a buzzard, using an illegal gin trap, contrary to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Despite veterinary treatment for the severe injury caused to its leg, the buzzard required to be euthanised as it would never be suitable for release back to the wild. The buzzard had been in good condition otherwise.

Graham Christie leased part of the Cardross Estate in Stirlingshire to use for his business, Dunmhor Shooting. He had employed O’Reilly as head game-keeper with responsibility for pest control on this part of the estate.

The offences were committed more than a year after the introduction of the vicarious liability legislation.

The law placed responsibility on Christie unless he could show that he took all reasonable steps and exercised all due diligence to prevent O’Reilly from committing the offences.

When asked by police how he was able to see what was going on ensure everything was done properly and professionally, Christie stated;

“Well I can only tell that by the amount of pheasants that were shown on a shoot day and that he was very good to be fair”.

Helen Nisbet, Head of the Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit said:

“These offences were committed well after the vicarious liability offence was introduced and the accused had ample time in which to take advice and put appropriate measures in place.

“He failed in his responsibilities and as a result stands convicted of the killing of a wild bird using an illegal gin trap.

“Anyone who seeks to injure or kill wild birds and anyone who employs or engages the services of such persons without taking appropriate precautions to prevent these offences being committed can fully expect to be brought to account before the courts.”

Notes To Editors

1. Section 18A of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the vicarious liability provisions, came into force on the 1st January 2012. They were created in an attempt to tackle raptor persecution by encouraging landowners, employers, and those with responsibility in connection with shooting to be diligent and proactive in countering wildlife crime.

2. James O’Reilly previously pled guilty to:

Intentionally injuring and taking a wild bird (a buzzard) by setting a gin trap (otherwise known as a leg hold trap) on open ground baited by a deer carcase contrary to section 1(1)(a); and,

Setting in position a trap, namely a gin trap (otherwise known as a leg hold trap) being of such a nature and so placed as to be likely to cause bodily injury to any wild birds contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

3. Section 18A(2) makes the accused guilty of the original offence and is liable to be punished accordingly.

4. Wildlife and environmental crime is a priority for COPFS. The development of specialist prosecutors and the creation of the COPFS Wildlife and Environment Crime Unit (WECU) have been significant steps forward in tackling wildlife crime. Our close working relationship with police wildlife crime officers and other specialist reporting agencies has permitted a collaborative building of expertise which has already shown impressive results. In serious cases, prosecutors work with wildlife investigators at an early stage to ensure that cases are prepared and presented to the highest standard.

WECU began operating from 15 August 2011.

END

Dunmhor Sporting LogoThis is good news, after the disappointment of the recent failure to prosecute another vicarious liability case on the Kildrummy Estate (see here). The penalty in this latest case (£3,200) is a considerable improvement on the pathetic £675 penalty given in the first successful vicarious liability case (see here), although it still falls far below what it could be and the fine itself is unlikely to act as any sort of deterrent to other would-be raptor killers. When you also consider the penalty handed to Christie’s gamekeeper for the original horrific offence (240 hours unpaid work – see here) it’s hard to get away from the sense that, although technically justice has prevailed in this case, the penalties do not reflect the seriousness of the crime. Whether the reputation of Christie’s sporting agency, Dunmhor Sporting, will suffer as a consequence of his criminal conviction remains to be seen although that would be hard to measure. Let’s hope Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod gets on with accepting the recommendations of the recent Willdife Crime Penalties Review group (see here), which include raising the penalty for this type of offence to fines of up to £40,000 and a 12 month custodial sentence. It’ll also be interesting to see whether SNH  decides to slap a General Licence Restriction Order on the Cardross Estate.

In the meantime, huge congratulations to Fiscal Kate Fleming for a successful prosecution and to all those involved with the initial investigation, especially the SSPCA.

Photo of Graham Christie from Press & Journal.

Media coverage

BBC news here

STV news here

Press & Journal here

RSPB Scotland here

Crowd out the wildlife criminals: appeal fund launched

Rare Bird Alert is the UK’s longest running instant bird news service. But more than that, this company has also become a strong ally in the campaign to raise public awareness of raptor persecution.

Following the news a few days ago that a red footed falcon, a scarce visitor to the UK, had been found shot dead in Cambridgeshire (see here), the team at Rare Bird Alert has launched a crowdfunding appeal to help boost the £1,000 reward on offer from the RSPB for information which leads to the conviction of the person responsible for killing this bird. It is hoped that a larger reward will encourage anyone with information to come forward, but the intention is also to send a strong message that people want to see an end to illegal raptor persecution.

If the reward is not claimed, Rare Bird Alert will donate the full amount raised to Birders Against Wildlife Crime – a voluntary group set up two years ago and who organise events such as Hen Harrier Day and the Eyes in the Field Wildlife Crime Conferences.

If you’d like to pledge your support, please visit the donations page HERE

Thank you.

red-footed-falcon_shot Sept 2015

 

Lead ammunition: time to get rid

Oxford Lead Symposium - CopyIt’s ironic that the latest scientific report detailing the harmful effects of toxic lead ammunition on both humans and wildlife has been published today, right in the middle of Great British Game Week.

The report is the Proceedings of the Oxford Lead Symposium: Lead Ammunition – Understanding and Minimising the Risks to Human and Environmental Health. The symposium took place at Oxford University in December 2014 and this report contains a series of papers, authored by some of the leading experts in this field. The report can be read here.

Despite what SNH and Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod would have us believe (e.g. see here), and what the Countryside Alliance would have us believe (e.g. see here), it’s long been known that lead is a highly toxic poison and its subsequent health risks have been documented over and over and over again (see here for excellent summary review of risks to both humans and wildlife, and see here for evidence of lead poisoning in European birds, including 17 raptor species, and see here for evidence of lead poisoning in North American raptor and non-raptor species).

The latest report includes even more evidence, if any more were needed, but also an interesting paper by Cromie et al. on why there is such opposition from the UK shooting community to the removal of lead ammunition. To many of us, based on the overwhelming body of scientific evidence, it seems such a simple thing to accept and get on with; just change your ammo to something that isn’t lead. It seems, however, according to this later paper, that resistance from the shooters is simply because they see it as an attack on shooting in general and that if lead ammo is banned, they think it’ll be the thin end of the wedge for bringing down hunting as a whole. That’s pretty much their justification for refusing to sign up.

Three eminent scientists have made damning comments about the continued use of lead ammunition. One of them, Professor Ian Newton, arguably the world’s leading raptor ecologist, said this:

“My own view is that a legislative ban is needed on the use of lead in all ammunition used for hunting. At one stroke this would alleviate the problems created for people (especially the hunters themselves), for wildlife and for domestic livestock by this unnecessary but highly toxic material“.

If you agree, you can sign an e- petition to ban toxic lead ammunition. The RSPB and the WWT have been promoting this petition on social media today. If it reaches 10,000 signatures, the Westminster Government will have to respond, which would be very interesting indeed. SIGN HERE

Media coverage

BBC news here

Mark Avery blog (today’s posts here, here, here)

Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust article here

BASC statement here

Countryside Alliance statement here

UPDATE 27th November 2015: Excellent video produced by WWT about lead poisoning here

Shameful catalogue of raptor persecution revealed in RSPB’s Birdcrime 2014 report

Birdcrime 2014 cover - CopyThe RSPB has today published its latest annual Birdcrime report (2014), documenting the confirmed, probable and unconfirmed incidents of crimes against wild birds in the UK, including crimes against birds of prey.

In 2014, the RSPB received 179 reports of the shooting and destruction of raptors, including the shooting of 23 buzzards, nine peregrines, three red kites and a hen harrier. Confirmed victims of poisonings included 23 red kites, nine buzzards and four peregrines. These victims represent the tip of the iceberg – many more will have gone undetected.

The National Wildlife Crime Unit says, ‘Intelligence continues to indicate a strong association between raptor persecution and grouse moor management‘.

Sign the petition to ban driven grouse shooting HERE

Looking at the breakdown of incidents against birds of prey in 2014, the top five worst regions were:

North Yorkshire (36 incidents)

Highland Scotland (25 incidents)

Norfolk (19 incidents)

Derbyshire (16 incidents)

Northumberland (16 incidents)

The RSPB Investigations team deserves a huge amount of credit for their continued efforts to document these crimes and publish these annual reports. Without their meticulous work many of these cases would remain hidden from public view, which is what the raptor-killing criminals would prefer.

RSPB press release here

Download Birdcrime 2014 here: Birdcrime 2014

Bird of prey ‘initiative’ in Peak District National Park fails to deliver

IMG_5764 (2)In 2011, a five-year ‘Bird of Prey Initiative’ was launched which aimed to restore declining populations of some raptor species in the Dark Peak region of the Peak District National Park.

This ‘initiative’ was deemed necessary following years of evidence of wide scale raptor persecution within the region (e.g. see RSPB summary reports here and here).

The members of the ‘Bird of Prey Initiative’ comprised five organisations: The Moorland Association, The National Trust, Natural England, Peak District National Park Authority and the RSPB. Two local raptor study groups (the Peak District Raptor Monitoring Group and the South Peak Raptor Study Group) were also involved.

Targets were set to increase the breeding populations of three key raptor species for which the area had been given Special Protection Area status, i.e. it was considered a nationally important site for these raptors.

The targets were set as follows:

Merlin: increase from 22 breeding pairs to 32 breeding pairs by 2015

Short-eared owl: maintain the average breeding population of 25 pairs to 2015.

Peregrine: increase from 13 breeding pairs to 15 breeding pairs by 2015.

These targets were not unreasonable – they reflected the number of breeding pairs that the SPA should have been able to support.

goshawk-legsInterestingly, the group failed to set any targets to improve the breeding populations of local goshawks and hen harriers; there was just an ‘expectation’ that these species would be encouraged to breed. Sure, neither are an SPA-qualifying species in this area but nevertheless the area used to hold historically important populations which have since been reduced, through illegal persecution, to an occasional successful pair, so why exclude them?

Anyway, the ‘initiative’ has now ended and surprise surprise, the targets set for merlin, short-eared owl and peregrine have not been met. And goshawks and hen harriers are still largely absent with just a couple of exceptions. You can download the project report here for details: PDNP-Birds-of-Prey-Report-2012-15

In response to the report’s findings, Rhodri Thomas, an ecologist with the Peak District National Park Authority, is quoted in this BBC article (here) as saying the report’s findings are “concerning and disappointing“. Mark Avery has described the findings as “entirely predictable and totally unacceptable” (see here).

Rhodri Thomas goes on to say that the decline in peregrine numbers (now at only four pairs) was the hardest to explain as numbers in other parts of the Park were increasing and there was no obvious reason why they were staying away from the Dark Peak. He said he was determined to “bottom-out” what was causing the decline.

Here’s an easy starting point for him – try reading the provisional results of the most recent National Peregrine Survey (see here) as well as the recent paper documenting peregrine declines in another region dominated by driven grouse shooting (see here).

Sorry, Rhodri, but it’s not that difficult to understand.

In a press release from the Peak District National Park (see here), there’s talk of ‘renewed commitment’ from the project partners as well as ‘new rigour and energy’ to restore the breeding success of raptors in the Dark Peak. This is, of course, utter bollocks.

Mark Avery has picked up on this in his blog from this morning (see here), and as he says, it’s just an opportunity for the National Park authorities to hide behind a failing project for a few more years and avoid taking any real action, like, for example, banning driven grouse shooting within the National Park.

We’re so tired of all this ‘talking’ and so-called ‘cooperation’. It hasn’t worked and nor will it work. How do you move on from a conversation that goes something like this:

Conservationists to the grouse shooting industry: “Stop illegally killing raptors”.

Grouse shooting industry to conservationists: “We’re not killing them”.

Meanwhile, the killing continues and The Untouchables remain untouchable. The time for talking is over.

Sign the petition to ban driven grouse shooting here

This dead goshawk (photo above) was found in the Peak District National Park in 2014 – both legs were broken and its injuries were consistent with being caught in an illegally set spring trap.