Earlier in December we blogged about SNH’s decision to authorise the use of clam-type traps under the 2013 General Licences, despite the concerns of a number of organisations that these traps are likely to cause injury to non-target species, especially raptors (see here).
This story has now been picked up by the BBC (see here). According to this article, at least two organisations (SSPCA and RSPB) have called on SNH to reconsider its decision on clam traps. Judging by the comment attributed to SNH’s Licensing Manager, Ben Ross, a U-turn looks unlikely:
“We will commission objective research on these traps; if the research shows they pose unacceptable risks, we will then prohibit them“.
Surely this is the wrong way around? You do the research to assess their suitability BEFORE you decide to approve their use, not afterwards!
But that’s not the end of the story. When we first blogged about SNH’s decision to approve these traps, we also raised concerns that SNH had appeared to ignore the recommendations made to them by all groups except those with an interest in game-shooting (blog article here). We asked blog readers to contact SNH and ask to see ALL the consultation responses they’d received, so that we could assess which groups’ recommendations had been accepted and which had been ignored. This was a successful tactic – in a letter to consultees yesterday, SNH wrote this:
“Following our response letter to the consultation we received a number of information requests for us to publish all responses that we received to the consultation. This email is to let you know that we are legally obliged to provide this information and as such will be publishing it on our website either later today or tomorrow……..As we have received a number of requests for the information, we will make the responses available on our website“.
So well done and thank you to those of you who made the effort to send an email request to SNH. We look forward to seeing the consultation responses published on the SNH website later today.
Let’s also not forget that the written answers are due tomorrow in response to MSP Claire Baker’s parliamentary questions about the use of these clam-type traps (see here).
A YouTube video that purports to show a golden eagle attempting to carry off a small child in a semi-urban park in Montreal has gone viral on social media networks. Unfortunately, for the eagle-haters, the video is clearly a fake. It’s not even a golden eagle! Watch the video
This isn’t especially new news, as it happened in the summer, but we were reminded of it today after reading something on Mark Avery’s blog – more on that later – and it does seem pertinent to blog about it now.
Some argue that conservation groups shouldn’t be sitting at the table with representatives from an industry that has been responsible for killing off England’s breeding hen harrier population. Others argue that the quota scheme may be the best way forward because at least there’d be some harriers, which is a better proposition than having none. Others have suggested that the quota system would never get off the ground anyway because the grouse moor owners would have to ‘allow’ a certain number of breeding hen harriers on their estates and they’ve shown themselves incapable of tolerating any.
Following on from earlier blog posts about SNH’s latest baffling decision to authorise the use of clam-type traps in the 2013 General Licences (see