Following an increase in the number of detections of highly pathogenic Avian Influenza (Bird Flu) in wild birds and other captive birds, the Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer from Scotland and Chief Veterinary Officer from England have declared a national Avian Influenza Prevention Zone (AIPZ) to mitigate the risk of the disease spreading amongst poultry and other captive birds.
This means that from 12:00 noon on Saturday 25 January, it became a legal requirement for all bird keepers in Scotland and England to follow strict and enhanced biosecurity measures to help protect their flocks from the threat of Avian Influenza.
Mandatory housing measures are not (yet) in place nationwide, but they are in the East Riding of Yorkshire, City of Kingston Upon Hull, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Shropshire, York and North Yorkshire.
A national AIPZ has not yet been declared for Wales.
Non-native red-legged partridge. Photo by Pete Walkden
As we’re now at the very end of the gamebird shooting season (ends on Saturday 1st Feb 2025), these new AIPZs won’t affect the release of gamebirds for shooting because although the AIPZ does not permit the release of gamebirds in these areas, nobody will be releasing birds at this time of year – instead they’ll be trying to kill as many as they can.
However, some shooting estates will also be ‘catching up’ gamebirds and ducks (this is permitted until 1 Feb in England and up until 28 February in Scotland) to use and/or sell the birds for breeding projects. There are now conditions imposed on the keepers of those birds, including a legal requirement not to move them on to other premises until 21 days after catching them. Details can be found here:
If you’re wondering how they’re allowed to catch up wild birds and keep them in captivity, you need to learn about Schrodinger’s Pheasant, where the status of non-native gamebirds such as pheasants and red-legged partridges changes from ‘livestock’ to ‘wildlife’ and back to ‘livestock’, to suit the interests of the game-shooting industry. This absurdity has been examined by Wild Justice here and here and with this infographic:
The declaration of the nationwide Avian Influenza Prevention Zones does not restrict gamebird shooting so we can expect more end-of-season shoots to take place this week, with a high likelihood that already-infected pheasants and red-legged partridges will be forcibly flying around the countryside as they’re chased towards the waiting guns, spreading a highly contagious disease to other wildlife. Then there’s the widespread distribution of potentially-infected gamebird carcasses finding their way in to the food chain.
But who cares about the national threat, eh? As long as the gamebird shooters can have their fun, right?
Regular blog readers will know that I’ve been trying to uncover the reasoning and process behind NatureScot’s sudden decision last autumn to change its approach and amend the brand new grouse moor licences that had been issued to sporting estates in Scotland under the new Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024.
The changes made by NatureScot significantly weakened the licence by changing the extent of the licensable area from covering an entire estate to just the parts of the estate where red grouse are ‘taken or killed’, which on a driven grouse moor could effectively just mean a small area around a line of grouse butts.
Photo of a line of grouse-shooting butts by Richard Cross, annotated by RPUK
NatureScot also added a new licence condition that it claimed would allow a licence revocation if raptor persecution crimes took place outside of the licensable area, but many of us believe this to be virtually unenforceable.
This new condition also means that all the other offences listed in the Wildlife Management & Muirburn Act that are supposed to trigger a licence revocation (i.e. offences on the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996, Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994, Animal Health & Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023) are NOT covered by the new licence condition. The new condition ONLY applies to raptor persecution offences (see previous blogs here, here, here, here, and here for background details).
As I blogged on 18 December 2024, NatureScot was clearly playing for time by stalling on releasing overdue FoI documents that I had asked for to try to find out what was behind the complete mess grouse shoot licensing has become.
Finally, on 19 December 2024, by sheer coincidence, I’m sure, NatureScot provided a response, amounting to 162 pages of internal and external email correspondence between July and October 2024, relating specifically to the changes made to grouse licence conditions.
Here is the cover letter sent to me by NatureScot, explaining what information was being released and what was being withheld
And here is the substantial correspondence that NatureScot had with representatives of the grouse shooting industry prior to NatureScot making changes to the licence:
It’s a lot to take in, and as you can imagine, it’s taken a while for me and my colleagues to digest the contents. To be frank, there’s nothing in the material released that we didn’t know or suspect had probably gone on, but the detail is very enlightening.
It’s very clear that the level of engagement between NatureScot and Scottish Land and Estates (SLE, the lobby organisation for grouse moor owners in Scotland) was truly staggering. SLE (and latterly, BASC) were granted at least eight exclusive meetings with NatureScot staff between 15 July and early October to discuss the grouse licensing issue, without a word to any other stakeholders that this issue was being discussed.
No notes of these meetings, or any of the many phone calls between SLE and BASC and NatureScot staff, has been provided in the FoI response.
Also missing from the FoI response is the legal advice that NatureScot received about making changes to the grouse licence, despite it being clearly critical to NatureScot’s decision making.
However, on the back of that legal advice, it is clear that SLE and BASC were given exclusive previews by NatureScot of proposed changes to the licence to agree before they were implemented.
From the perspective of those of us who campaigned long and hard for a robust system of grouse moor licensing, and engaged diligently with the process of the Wildlife Management Bill as it progressed through Parliament and the subsequent meetings to determine the accompanying codes of practice, I’m not sure how this fits into NatureScot’s oft-repeated claim to seek “openness and transparency”.
The policy intent of the legislation, part of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Act, which was overwhelmingly passed by the Scottish Parliament, was crystal clear – “to address the on-going issue of wildlife crime, and in particular the persecution of raptors, on managed grouse moors. It will do this by enabling a licence to be modified, suspended or revoked, where there is robust evidence of raptor persecution or another relevant wildlife crime related to grouse moor management such as the unlicenced killing of a wild mammal, or the unlawful use of a trap”.
Given the amount of evidence that SLE was invited to give during the Committee stages of the Bill’s progression, including representations by their legal representative, one wonders why SLE didn’t question the interpretation of the draft legislation defining land to be covered by a licence at that stage?
SLE certainly raised questions and objections about many other aspects of the legislation during that process but maybe didn’t want the kind of public debate in front of MSPs that raising this issue at that time would have led to?
Instead, the land management sector, and in particular SLE, pursued an extraordinary level of behind-the-scenes access to NatureScot staff after the legislation had been agreed through the democratic process, who in turn bent over backwards to accommodate all their demands, simply to head off the threat of legal action over interpretation of the new grouse licensing legislation, specifically how much of an estate should be covered by a licence.
At this point, it’s legitimate to question SLE’s motives for trying to limit the amount of an estate that is licensed. Surely, if an estate’s employees aren’t committing wildlife crime, the extent of the licence shouldn’t actually matter?
Anyway, it’s clear that discussions with SLE about a “legal issue” began in early July 2024, shortly after the period for grouse shooting applications had opened. It’s also apparent that shooting representative organisations were already advising their members via social media to delay submitting applications until the issue that “relates to the area of land to which the licence relates” was resolved.
The FoI documents show that RSPB picked up on this and emailed NatureScot on 18 July 2024 asking for details. The response from NatureScot, sent the following day, appears to be reassuring, stating:
“We are clear that licences we issue should relate to the full landholding and not just land over which grouse are taken and killed, because as you well know, raptor persecution undertaken in connection with grouse moor management could take place anywhere on a property, not just on the grouse moor itself”.
I, and I’m sure most readers of this blog, completely agree with this sentiment. We all know of many, many cases of raptors killed by gamekeepers on grouse shooting estates in places well away from where actual grouse shooting occurs – in woodlands, at nests on crags, in adjoining farmland. I don’t doubt that the majority of MSPs who passed the legislation would also have shared this view. Indeed, why would anyone who genuinely wishes to see raptor persecution addressed not agree?
However, we now know that NatureScot went from saying they were comfortable that the process in place was robust (on 16 July) to bending over backwards to accommodate every suggestion SLE made about new conditions, despite recognising early on that the “policy intent” of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Act might not be realised if areas covered by licences were too small.
Interestingly, the document also shows that NatureScot’s internally-agreed line of communications (from 19 July 2024) would be that they were “working closely with stakeholders to develop a workable licensing scheme for grouse shooting that supports those who manage their grouse moors within the law and acts as a strong deterrent to raptor persecution”.
Really? This has proven to be completely misleading and disingenuous at best. In reality it’s clear that the only organisations NatureScot was working closely with were SLE and BASC, even giving them advance notice of proposed new licence conditions for their comments and approval.
In contrast, there is no correspondence with the police or NWCU to ask their opinion on the proposed new conditions and their enforceability, or any hint of wider discussion or consultation with any other organisation, despite other’s involvement in giving evidence to Parliament or contributing to the Grouse Code of Practice.
Instead, there has been a concerted effort to placate representatives from the industry responsible for the illegal slaughter of huge numbers of raptors and other protected species, resulting in a significant number of investigations and prosecutions, just to head off legal threats. The rest of the world only became aware of these changes to the licences when it was all cut and dried, a done deal, published on NatureSot’s website.
As I have written before, not only is the area to be covered by a licence down to the whims of the licence applicant, whatever the non-legally binding expectations of the licensing authority that it would include the whole grouse moor, but a new condition that I and many others believe to be unenforceable has been added.
A stinging, but apparently unanswered, email sent from the RSPB to NatureScot on 10 October 2024 sums it up:
“This new ‘wildlife crime licensing condition’ will apply outside of the licensed area of a landholding but only where offences committed are related to management of the grouse moor. In a scenario where a buzzard is found dying in an illegally-set pole trap on a sporting estate, 2km away from the licensed grouse moor, we question what evidence will be required, and how it will be obtained, to allow an assessment if that crime was linked to grouse moor management, particularly if it was an estate that also had pheasant shooting?
“In summary, we believe that this new condition means that establishing a link between raptor persecution offences and grouse moor management, and to act as a meaningful deterrent to wildlife crimes, will now require a burden of proof that will be virtually impossible to achieve”.
So much for these licences being a deterrent to raptor persecution! We also now know that NatureScot didn’t undertake a single measure of compliance monitoring or checks on the use of the 250 licences it issued for the 2024 grouse shooting season (see here).
It’s becoming increasingly apparent that a culture of appeasement to the land management sector has become embedded in NatureScot. I’ll have a lot more to say about this over the coming weeks, (there is an ongoing related issue that has so many similarities but I can’t write about it yet, pending legal advice) but there is a growing sense of unease amongst conservationists with regard to decisions being taken by an organisation that should be leading on protecting Scotland’s wildlife.
In the meantime, concerned blog readers may feel moved to write (politely) to the Scottish Government’s Minister for Agriculture & Connectivity, Jim Fairlie MSP, (email: MinisterforAC@gov.scot) to ask him what he intends to do to fix the huge loophole that NatureScot has created in the first Bill he led on in Government.
I’ll be very interested in the responses you get.
You might also increasingly be thinking that licensing grouse shooting just isn’t going to work, and the whole thing should just be banned. If so, please sign this petition.
The following statement and photo was posted on social media on 19 January 2025:
GWENT POLICE: Another busy weekend for the rural crime team that included responding to a report of 2 dead birds of prey. Found in suspicious circumstances, they have been recovered for autopsy via the Wildlife Investigation Team (WIIS).
As many of you will be aware, the 2024 grouse shooting season in Scotland (12 Aug – 10 Dec 2024) saw the use of grouse moor licences for the first time ever, introduced by the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 passed by the Scottish Parliament in March 2024.
For new readers, this Act was introduced as the Scottish Government’s response to the continued widespread illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors. It works on the basis that all red grouse shooting must now be licensed in Scotland under a section 16AA licence and if, on the civil burden of proof (i.e. on the balance of probability) sufficient evidence is found that the licence has been breached (including evidence of illegal raptor persecution), the licence can be withdrawn as a sanction, preventing the shooting of red grouse on a particular estate for a period of up to five years.
The licences have already been weakened significantly by NatureScot after a legal threat from the game-shooting industry (see here) and I’ll be writing more about that, probably later this week.
As part of the new grouse moor licensing scheme, NatureScot published a Code of Practice for Grouse Moor Management (also known as the Grouse Code) which sets out the legal requirements associated with managing land for killing and/or taking red grouse.
The Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 requires that a licence holder comply with the Grouse Code. Non-adherence to the Grouse Code could result in a licensing sanction and/or suspension or revocation. Here is the Grouse Code:
You’ll note on pages 2-3 of the Grouse Code that it includes a section on compliance monitoring.
Stating the obvious, NatureScot says, ‘Compliance monitoring is a key aspect of any licensing approach‘ and then outlines the types of compliance monitoring checks it says it will conduct:
Sounds reassuringly comprehensive, doesn’t it?
However, in recent months I’ve learned that NatureScot can’t be trusted (more on that soon!) so rather than rely on what NatureScot says it will do with regard to Grouse Code compliance checks, I decided to find it what it actually did by submitting an FoI request as follows:
In relation to the 2024 grouse shooting season (12 Aug – 10 Dec 2024), how many licences did NatureScot issue for grouse shooting?
Of those licences, how many compliance checks were undertaken by NatureScot in relation to adherence to the Grouse Code of Practice? Please break down these results to show the number of (a) desk top checks, (b) on-site visits, and (c) checks via accreditation schemes.
Of those compliance checks, how many licence holders were found to have committed (a) minor breaches and (b) significant breaches?
Here is NatureScot’s response:
So, NatureScot issued 264 grouse shooting licences for the 2024 season and says that 14 ‘were either cancelled, revoked or withdrawn‘. I’m guessing that none of them were ‘cancelled’ or ‘revoked’, but rather all 14 were ‘withdrawn’ by the licence applicant, probably as a result of the threatened legal challenge against NatureScot by the grouse-shooting industry that resulted in a narrowing of the licensable area, so perhaps some licence holders withdrew their original licence applications and submitted revised applications showing the more limited boundary.
Whatever the reason, I’m quite confident that no licences have been ‘cancelled’ or ‘revoked’ by NatureScot because if they had, NatureScot would have publicised it on its website in the same way it does for General Licence restrictions. I suspect in this case, NatureScot has deliberately included the words ‘cancelled’ and ‘revoked’ in its FoI response in an attempt to infer enforcement action when actually it hasn’t done any enforcement whatsoever.
That leaves 250 grouse shooting licences that NatureScot issued for the 2024 grouse shooting season. Of those, NatureScot didn’t undertake one single compliance check.
That’s astonishing, given that the Scottish Parliament introduced grouse shoot licensing on the basis that many grouse moor owners and managers couldn’t be trusted to abide by the law, despite years of warnings that if they didn’t stop illegally killing birds of prey they’d face imposed regulations. Given this long history of criminality, you’d think that compliance monitoring would be fundamental.
Regulation, in this case licensing, is only as strong as the associated compliance monitoring efforts and subsequent enforcement action. We’ve already seen the illegal shooting of an osprey (here) and a peregrine (here) since the licensing scheme began, and no sign of any subsequent enforcement action, which suggests that the licensing scheme simply isn’t an effective mechanism for stopping The Untouchables. NatureScot’s failure to undertake a single licence compliance check is playing right into their hands.
Further to this afternoon’s blog about the conviction today of Scottish gamekeeper Thomas Ebner for a snaring offence in April 2023 (here), the Scottish SPCA has issued the following press release:
GAMEKEEPER PLEADS GUILTY TO SNARING FOX
A man has been fined £1,250 and ordered to pay a £75 surcharge for cruelly snaring a fox.
Thomas Ebner, 74, from Reston in the Scottish Borders, pled guilty to setting a snare that could cause unnecessary suffering to any animal that came into contact with it. The snare was located on land belonging to Old Castles Farm in Chirnside.
The snared fox at the centre of this case. Photo SSPCA
The fox was caught by the neck and partially suspended on a broken fence line.
Ebner was sentenced at Selkirk Sheriff Court on Monday, January 20 2025.
Sheriff Paterson remarked, “This is a breach of the act. You knew what you were doing, and the fox suffered. But, I must consider that you have no previous convictions and pleaded guilty.”
The sheriff then fined Ebner £1,250, plus a £75 surcharge.
A Scottish SPCA Inspector from the Special Investigations Unit (SIU) said, “The fox was found caught in a snare along a broken fence line by members of the public. It was seen jumping through the fence in considerable distress and foaming at the mouth. The snare was wrapped around a fence post and was blood-stained. The public was able to free the fox from the snare.
“This snare was set in a way that caused suffering to the fox. There was a significant risk of it becoming entangled in the fence, which could have led to strangulation. It was clear that the fox was experiencing both mental and physical distress. The animal was at further risk of injury from surrounding barbed wire and broken wood.
“The snare was set by an individual who had attended an official snare training course, where they were taught the correct way to set snares.
“This is yet another example of the cruel impact snares can have on animal welfare and the unnecessary suffering they cause. We welcome the ban on snares implemented by the Scottish Government.”
A ban on the use of snares came into effect in March 2024 as part of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act.
“We have also been given additional investigative powers to tackle wildlife crime. These powers allow our inspectors, who are already investigating animal welfare offences, to search, examine, and seize evidence.
“The Bill includes various measures to protect wildlife, such as a ban on all forms of snares and glue traps.
“We have long called for an outright ban on snares due to the suffering they inflict on animals, whether used legally or illegally. Animals caught in snares can endure unimaginable physical and mental anguish. Snares are non-selective and can harm both domestic animals and non-target wildlife.”
A Scottish gamekeeper has pleaded guilty to a snaring offence and has been fined £1,250.
Thomas Ebner, 74, of Lakeside, Reston, Berwickshire, had previously pleaded not guilty to four charges relating to an incident that took place on land believed to be used by a small shooting syndicate at Old Castles Farm, Chirnside, in the Scottish Borders on April 25th 2023, which resulted in a fox being suspended by its neck in a snare on a broken fence line where it was found foaming at the mouth and thrashing around trying to escape (see here for previous blog on this case).
At the time of the offence, snares were still lawful in Scotland but were not permitted to be set in a position where a trapped animal could be suspended, and users had to first attend a snare training course and then apply for an identification tag that would identify the snare operator and the target species.
A snared fox on a fence line. NB: File photo, not associated with this case. Photo by SSPCA
Ebner’s previous not guilty plea had led to a trial date being set for 4th February 2025. However, in a pre-trial hearing this morning at Selkirk Sheriff Court, Ebner changed his plea to guilty of one charge and the other three charges were dropped.
I’d argue that Ebner got off lightly. A fine of £1,250 + £75 surcharge is well below the maximum sentence available, which is a custodial sentence of six months and/or a fine of £5,000. So much for those so-called ‘tougher penalties‘ for wildlife crime.
Thankfully, the use of snares in Scotland has now been banned (since 25th November 2024) under the new Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act, thanks to a long-running campaign by animal welfare campaigners who spent decades putting forward evidence that these devices, recently and cynically named ‘humane cable restraints’ by the game-shooting industry, are actually cruel, indiscriminate and inhumane and have no place in modern society.
UPDATE 16.30hrs: Gamekeeper pleads guilty to snaring fox – press release from SSPCA (here)
The UK Government has announced that licence fees for firearms and shotguns are set to increase next month to allow for ‘full-cost recovery’, which means that taxpayers will no longer be subsidising the use of these weapons.
Photo by Ruth Tingay
Those wishing to possess, buy or acquire a firearm or shotgun and ammunition in the UK are required to have a certificate, issued by the user’s local police force who act as the licensing authority. These certificates are valid for five years, unless revoked.
Before a certificate is granted, the police undertake a vetting procedure which includes medical checks and a range of suitability checks including referee interviews and a home visit to ensure the applicant has a secure facility to store a weapon and ammunition. All of this costs money from the force’s budget and until now, this cost has been significantly subsidised by the tax payer, costing the national police budget an estimated £17 – £20 million pounds a year.
Last week the Home Office announced an increase in licensing fees, the first since 2015, that will, for the first time, achieve full-cost recovery for police forces.
Here are the current licence fees and the new fees that begin on 5th February 2025:
This has been a long time coming. It was in Labour’s election manifesto and I’m pleased to see the speed with which it’s being rolled out.
Some game-shooting organisations, such as BASC, are dramatically claiming that the fee increase ‘poses a threat to rural livelihoods‘. Having to pay the equivalent of £25.20 per year for a shotgun certificate renewal isn’t exactly going to ruin the rural economy, is it?
Let’s hope the £17-£20 million pounds saved from the annual police budget can be put to good use to chase down all those certificate-holding gamekeepers who continue to use their firearms and shotguns to illegally kill birds of prey.
The Government has no plans to ban driven grouse shooting. It recognises well-managed grouse shooting can be an important part of a local rural economy, providing direct and indirect employment.
This is a devolved matter. The Government appreciates that many people hold strong views on the issue of driven grouse shooting. The Government considers that well-managed shooting activities can bring benefits to the rural economy and can be beneficial for wildlife and habitat conservation. We will continue work to ensure a sustainable, mutually beneficial relationship between shooting and conservation. The Government has no plans to ban grouse shooting.
It is of course vital that wildlife and habitats are protected and the law is respected by those involved in the grouse shooting industry. Wild birds of prey, for example, are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. There is evidence from Ewing et al (2023) and others to suggest a link between crimes against birds of prey and grouse shooting. The Government supports the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) – which helps prevent and detect crimes against wildlife by obtaining and disseminating intelligence and directly assisting law enforcers in their investigations – and the Hen Harrier Task Force – which is led by the NWCU and aims to detect, deter, and disrupt offenders, in particular those persecuting rare hen harriers – by using technology and improving partnership working. Where wild birds of prey or any non-target species of wildlife are killed illegally the full force of the law should apply to proven perpetrators of the crime. All forms of predator management to protect grouse must be undertaken within the law, including compliance with animal welfare legislation.
Grouse shooting takes place in upland areas, which are important for a range of things including, food, fibre, water regulation, carbon storage, biodiversity and recreational opportunities. UK uplands have 75 per cent of the world’s remaining heather moorland and about 13 per cent of the world’s blanket bog.
Upland catchments provide 70 per cent of the UK’s drinking water. The Government is committed to delivering positive environmental and economic benefits and creating a more sustainable future for the English uplands, including preserving and restoring peatlands.
Healthy, active peat provides good habitat for grouse as well as numerous environmental benefits. Through the Nature for Climate Peatland Grant Scheme, the Government is continuing to invest millions of pounds in peatland restoration, to aid climate change mitigation and nature recovery. The Government’s new and improved Countryside Stewardship offer will be available this summer. This scheme will encourage land managers to enter into agreements to enhance and protect the natural environment, including upland peatland habitats.
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
ENDS
It looks similar to previous Government responses on this issue but of course this one is from a Labour Government, not a vested-interest Conservative Government, which makes it all the more inadequate.
I note the frequent use of the words ‘can’ and ‘should’ within the statement, without acknowledging that the reason this issue keeps being put in front of politicians is precisely because intensively managed driven grouse moors are NOT beneficial for wildlife and habitat conservation, that the laws around killing protected species are NOT respected, and when birds of prey are killed illegally on grouse moors the full force of the law is NOT applied.
The statement also perpetuates the long-held shooting industry myth that “UK uplands have 75 per cent of the world’s remaining heather moorland“. No, they do not and this inaccurate claim has long been debunked by leading academics (e.g. see here) and has even been acknowledged by the GWCT (see here). The petitioners, Wild Justice, have written to complain to the Petitions Committee about DEFRA’s reliance on factual inaccuracy.
I’ve seen it suggested on social media that this response from Government should ‘shut up Wild Justice once and for all”. Well, to quote Ian Hislop:
“When a Government in this country loses an election, the opposition doesn’t just say, ‘Oh, that’s absolutely right, I’ve got nothing to say for the next five years’. We are entitled to go on making the argument“.
If anything, this piss-poor response to the petition from DEFRA and the Westminster Government only strengthens our resolve to continue making the argument and they can expect to see an increase in our campaigning efforts over the coming months, to reach 100,000 signatures and force a debate at Westminster Hall.
If you haven’t signed the petition already, please do so here.
My colleague Mark Avery has written a blog about DEFRA’s response, here.
Lincolnshire Police posted the following on social media yesterday:
Sadly the beautiful buzzard in the picture has died as a result of being shot.
The bird was found alive on Saturday 4 January at Grainthorpe and taken to the emergency vets where it was treated and later collected by Cleethorpes Wildlife Rescue. The buzzard didn’t survive it’s injuries. Crime ref 24*10683 refers.
If is an offence to kill or injure any wild bird. They are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. It is also an offence to interfere with nests, or remove any chicks or eggs.
DC Aaron Flint from our Rural Crime Action Team said: “I’d like to hear from anyone who has information about the shooting of birds in our county. Please don’t think it’s not worth reporting, it very much is and helps us to build a picture of this sort of crime.”
If you have any information that will help with this investigation or similar offences, please get in touch by emailing aaron.flint@lincs.police.uk.
Alternatively contact the independent charity Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111 or online at Crimestoppers-uk.org.
Press release from The National Parks & Wildlife Service (NPWS), 14 January 2025:
INVESTIGATION UNDERWAY FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF A WHITE-TAILED EAGLE IN COUNTY WESTMEATH
The National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) appeal to the public for information.
The NPWS has launched an investigation following the recent shooting dead of a White-tailed Eagle beside Lough Owel, near Mullingar, Co. Westmeath and is appealing to the public for information.
The two-year old female eagle was part of the NPWS White-tailed Eagle Reintroduction Programme. She was released in 2022 on the Shannon Estuary. Investigating officers have established that the bird was shot, but, are awaiting further results of forensic analysis that may provide additional information.
The NPWS deplores the deliberate killing of rare and endangered species, and takes bird of prey persecutions extremely seriously.
NPWS is appealing for any information the public may have in relation to the incident.
As part of the reintroduction programme, White-tailed Eagle chicks are fitted with satellite tags to monitor their movement. Information from the satellite tag for the dead eagle indicates that she died sometime on Friday the 6th of December, the day before Storm Darragh, in the Ballynafid / Portnashangan area at Lough Owel.
Satellite information shows that she was present in the area over the previous couple of weeks having travelled widely across the country since her release in 2022. In early 2023, she left north Kerry, and spent time at various locations along the western seaboard. She also travelled to Donegal and spent a lot of time making trips over and back to north Antrim, Fermanagh, Cavan and other counties, including visiting Lough Ree in the north midlands. Lately she had come back to Westmeath where she moved between local lakes- Lough Owel, Lough Derravaragh and Lough Ennell.
Members of the public can contact the NPWS by emailing wildlifeenforcement@npws.gov.ie. All reports will be treated in the strictest of confidence.
ENDS
There is a further NWPS statement dated 15 January 2025:
MINISTER NOONAN APPEALS TO THE PUBLIC FOR INFORMATION FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF A WHITE-TAILED EAGLE AT LOUGH OWEL IN CO. WESTMEATH
“Like all who cherish our wildlife, I was devastated to hear of the recent shooting dead of a White-tailed Eagle beside Lough Owel, near Mullingar in Co. Westmeath. White Tailed Eagles are magnificent creatures; their presence are such good indicators of the health of our ecosystems and countryside and now part of our wider efforts to restore nature. It is an absolute deplorable act to kill such a rare and endangered species.
“This young female eagle was part of the very successful NPWS White Tailed Eagle Reintroduction Programme in partnership with Norway. I was honoured to be present at the release of these stunning creatures to the wild in my role as Minister of State for Nature and Heritage.
“After being released into the Shannon Estuary in 2022 she had peacefully settled into the Irish landscape travelling from north Kerry, spending time in Western Seaboard before travelling to Armagh, Fermanagh, Cavan and other counties, including visiting Lough Ree in the north midlands. Lately she had returned to Westmeath where she moved between local lakes- Lough Owel, Lough Derravaragh and Lough Ennell. Satellite tags fitted by NPWS indicate that she died on 6th December the day before Storm Darragh, in the Ballynafid/ Portnashangan area at Lough Owel.
“White Tailed Eagles are treasured by local communities and visitors to Ireland alike and any loss resonates throughout. I appeal to the public to come forward with any information that they may have in relation to this incident. I am assured that NPWS are undertaking a thorough investigation led by the Wildlife Crime Directorate with the support of An Garda Siochána and will, where possible, bring the perpetrators of this unacceptable crime to justice. Members of the public can contact the NPWS by emailing wildlifeenforcement@npws.gov.ie. All reports will be treated in the strictest of confidence“.
Raptor Persecution UK 