Category: News

Goshawk suspected shot in Peak District National Park

The RSPB has just issued this press statement:

Goshawk nest fails in suspicious circumstances in Peak District

The RSPB is appealing for information after a goshawk nest failed in suspicious circumstances at Dove Stone in the Peak District.

On 10 May, a local raptor worker discovered the freshly abandoned goshawk nest in conifer woodland in the Longendale Valley, which the RSPB co-manages with landowner United Utilities. There were three cold eggs in the nest, one of which was broken.  Damaged goshawk body feathers and a spent plastic shotgun cartridge were found in the immediate vicinity.

Both Derbyshire Police and the Peak District Bird of Prey Initiative were informed.

A local birdwatcher observed the female goshawk near to the nest on 8 May so it’s thought that the nest failed sometime between the afternoon of 8 May and the morning of 10 May.

Goshawks have been subjected to a high level of illegal persecution in the northern Peak District where they are now teetering on the brink of extinction. In 2015, there were only three known nests in the Dark Peak, one of which successfully fledged young.

Dave O’Hara, RSPB Site Manager at Dove Stone, said: “Due to illegal persecution goshawks are really struggling in the Dark Peak so we are deeply concerned that this nest has failed in suspicious circumstances on land that we manage. We would urge anyone with information to report it to the Police immediately by calling 101.”

END

GOS NEST pdnp may 2016 - CopyWhat this press release doesn’t say is that this goshawk site is a historical one (i.e. goshawks have attempted to breed here in the past) although strangely the site has never been successful, with breeding attempts always failing by the incubation stage. Perhaps not so strange when you realise that the site is adjacent to a driven grouse moor.

Once again, the Peak District Bird of Prey Initiative (perhaps a more apt name would be the Peak District Lack of Bird of Prey Initiative) has failed to respond, leaving it up to the RSPB to issue a press statement. That’s very odd, especially when you consider the Lack of Bird of Prey Initiative recently decided to include goshawk on its list of raptor species that would receive improved protection within the Dark Peak area of the National Park.

The RSPB statement hints at some annoyance with both the Peak District Lack of Bird Prey Initiative and Derbyshire Constabulary for failing to report this suspected shooting, but it really is just a subtle hint.

So why no timely public appeal from the Peak District Lack of Bird of Prey Initiative or the police? Is there a lack of leadership? Is there some internal issue? A disagreement on the choice of words? Or just an inability or unwillingness to communicate bad news? Perhaps they’re still shell-shocked from the recent news of the armed man sitting next to a decoy hen harrier on a grouse moor within the National Park – a grouse moor that was supposedly signed up to the aims of the Bird of Prey Initiative?

What is clear is that raptor persecution within the Peak District National Park is out of control and has been for many years (e.g. see here and here). It’s also abundantly clear that the Peak District Bird of Prey Initiative isn’t working and is simply providing a convenient cover for the grouse-shooting industry who use their membership of it as ‘evidence’ of their support for raptor conservation. Sorry, but we can all see straight through it. It’s time for the good guys to step away from this failed Initiative and stop giving the criminals such cover.

Over 39,000 people have now signed the petition to ban driven grouse shooting. That’s over 39,000 people who have made the link between driven grouse shooting and illegal raptor persecution. There will be many more thousands who sign this petition as these raptor persecution crimes are increasingly exposed. Please sign HERE.

Goshawk photo by Steve Garvie

Photo of the failed goshawk nest (via digiscope) sent to us by a Peak District raptor worker

North Yorks Police try to justify police caution for criminal activity on grouse moor

Following today’s earlier blog about the man who was given a police caution after he was filmed setting illegal pole traps on the Mossdale Estate grouse moor within the Yorkshire Dales National Park (see here), North Yorkshire Police has now issued an unbelievable press statement in an attempt to justify their decision to caution instead of prosecute:

NYorksPolice statement

Before we take this statement apart, we want to make it clear that our comments are NOT aimed at the three police wildlife crime officers who attended the crime scene. It is obvious from the RSPB Investigation Team’s blog (here) and from recent accounts of police attendance at other raptor persecution crime scenes in North Yorkshire (e.g. see here) that these on-the-ground police officers are doing their utmost to respond quickly, collect evidence, issue early appeals for information, and work inclusively with the RSPB Investigation Team. We sincerely applaud their efforts and they deserve all credit for their actions.

Our comments are aimed directly at senior officers within North Yorkshire Police, i.e. the one(s) who took the decision to issue a caution rather than consider a prosecution.

So, THAT police statement. What an unbelievably stupid, self-congratulatory piece of work. It really beggars belief that this police force, which, incidentally, has just taken on the role of National Wildlife Crime Lead, views this result as a ‘successful conviction’. What interests us the most about the statement is the following sentence:

“Based on the case at hand, it was decided the most appropriate course of action was to give him an adult caution“.

When the police decide on a course of action, they are supposed to refer to official guidance to help their decision-making. The official guidance document relating to whether a caution is appropriate can be read here. This is a fascinating read.

It explains that a ‘simple caution’ (once known as a formal or police caution) is a formal warning that may be given by the police to persons aged 18 years or over who admit to committing an offence. A simple caution must NOT be given if the decision-maker (i.e. senior police officer) considers that it is in the public interest for the offender to be prosecuted. Er, there’s failure #1 for North Yorks Police.

A simple caution may only be given where specified criteria are met. These criteria are listed in what’s called a Gravity Factor Matrix (see here). This matrix sets out the aggravating and mitigating factors that the decision-maker must consider for various types of offence. If you look at page 39, you’ll find the guidance the police are supposed to follow for a wildlife crime offence. Here are the listed aggravating factors, which, in this particular case, should have been considered by North Yorkshire Police:

The offence relates to a wildlife crime priority. Does this  aggravating factor apply to this case? Er, YES! Raptor persecution is a national wildlife crime priority. Failure #2 for North Yorks Police.

The conservation impact of the offence. Does this aggravating factor apply to this case? Er, YES! Hen harrier persecution is responsible for the precarious conservation status of this species in England. Failure #3 for North Yorks Police.

The offence results in or is intended to result in financial gain. Does this aggravating factor apply to this case? Er, YES! Raptor persecution on grouse moors is undertaken to maximise the number of red grouse available for paying clients to kill and the number of red grouse killed impacts on the estimated value of the estate/shoot. Failure #4 for North Yorks Police.

The offence involves cruelty. Does this aggravating factor apply to this case? Er, YES! A pole trap functions by crushing the leg(s) of any bird that lands on it and the bird can then dangle upside down from the post for many hours/days, unable to escape. Failure #5 for North Yorks Police.

The offence was planned or pre-meditated. Does this aggravating factor apply to this case? Er, YES! This offender re-set three traps knowing exactly what could result from his actions. Failure #6 for North Yorks Police.

The mitigating factors for the decision-maker to consider for this wildlife crime offence were:

The offence was committed by mistake or misunderstanding. Does this mitigating factor apply to this case? Er, NO!

The offence would result in little or no conservation impact. Does this mitigating factor apply to this case? Er, NO!

So, this offence starts off with a Gravity Score of 3. You then look at the aggravating and mitigating factors and then decide how to proceed. If you look at the guidelines (page 5), you’ll see that the appropriate police action for an offence with this gravity score is ‘Normally charge but a simple caution may be appropriate if first offence’.

We’d like to know why the senior police officer decided that this case was worthy of a simple caution instead of the ‘normally charge’ route, especially given that all five aggravating factors were met and the mitigating factors were inapplicable.

And we’re not alone in our concern. We sent a tweet to North York Police Acting Assistant Chief Constable Amanda Oliver (she with responsibility as the National Wildlife Crime Lead) asking her if she had sanctioned the above statement from North Yorkshire Police. To her credit, she responded as follows:

AmandaOliverResponse

We look forward to learning the details of her review in due course.

Attempted hen harrier persecution on grouse moor in Yorkshire Dales National Park

An unnamed man has received a police caution for setting three illegal pole traps in the middle of a grouse moor in the Yorkshire Dales National Park.

The three traps were discovered on Friday 6th May 2016 by a member of the public, who also saw a female hen harrier hunting in the vicinity. The RSPB Investigations Team moved swiftly and first made the traps safe and then installed covert cameras that night, to find out who was responsible for the traps. When they retrieved the cameras on Monday 9th May, their video footage revealed an armed man attending the traps and re-setting them (see photo below). North Yorkshire Police responded very quickly and attended the site the following day (Tuesday 10th May) to seize the traps.

Mossdale pole trap May 2016

The full details of these crimes can be read on the RSPB Investigations Team’s excellent blog here and there’s an accompanying video here.

The individual who was filmed setting the traps has received a police caution (which is presumably why he hasn’t been named). Quite why this case didn’t proceed to a prosecution is a matter of deep concern and the RSPB is writing to North Yorkshire Police to establish why the decision was made not to prosecute. We’ll come back to that in a later blog.

The location where these traps were set has been named by the RSPB as Widdale Fell on the Mossdale Estate.

Mossdale (1)

What the RSPB didn’t say was that this grouse-shooting estate is owned by the van Cutsem family. That name might be familiar to some of you. Indeed, if you google ‘van Cutsem hen harrier’ you’ll see a long list of entries relating to the alleged shooting of two hen harriers at the Queen’s Sandringham Estate in 2007. William van Cutsem was interviewed, along with his friend Prince Harry, as they were both out shooting on the estate that evening. They both denied all knowledge of the shot harriers and nobody was ever prosecuted (see here).

The van Cutsem family name is well known in grouse-shooting circles and has many royal connections. The late Hugh van Cutsem was a personal friend of Prince Charles and all four sons have featured regularly in the shooting press, mostly being recognised for their shooting prowess. The youngest van Cutsem son, William, is Prince George’s godfather, and Prince William is godfather to Grace, the daughter of the eldest van Cutsem son, Edward.

The van Cutsem’s Mossdale Estate sits within the Yorkshire Dales National Park (YDNP). This region is no stranger to hen harrier persecution. Hen harriers have not bred successfully in the YDNP since 2007. According to 2007-2014 hen harrier satellite data, published by Natural England in 2014, at least nine young sat tagged hen harriers have ‘disappeared’ within the Park boundary:

Female, tagged N England 26/6/07: last known location YDNP 5/10/07. Status: missing.

Female, tagged N England 16/7/09: last known location YDNP 27/9/09. Status: missing.

Male, tagged Bowland 29/6/09: last known location YDNP 17/8/09. Status: missing.

Female, tagged N England 29/6/10: last known location YDNP 25/11/10. Status: missing.

Female (Bowland Betty), tagged Bowland 22/6/11: last known location YDNP 5/7/12. Status: shot dead.

Female (Kristina), tagged N England 25/6/12: last known location YDNP 9/10/12. Status: missing.

Male (Thomas), tagged N England 4/9/12: last known location YDNP 4/9/12. Status: missing.

Male (Sid), tagged Langholm 21/9/14: last known location YDNP 21/9/14. Status: missing.

Female (Imogen), tagged N England 26/6/14: last known location YDNP 1/9/14. Status: missing.

The YDNP, as with other areas where land-use is dominated by driven grouse moors, is a magnet for young hen harriers, but few of them seem to survive. Why is that? What with gas guns, decoy hen harriers and illegal pole traps, all being reported from driven grouse moors in recent weeks, it’s not hard to take an educated guess. It seems there’s an ‘alternative’ Hen Harrier Action Plan at work.

We’ll be coming back to this latest crime in future blogs but for now, you might want to contact David Butterworth, Chief Executive of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority, and ask him why illegal pole traps are being set on grouse moors within the National Park, why hen harriers have failed to nest within the National Park since 2007, why so many young satellite-tagged hen harriers seem to ‘disappear’ within the National Park, and what action the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority intends to take? Emails to: david.butterworth@yorkshiredales.org.uk

Petition to ban driven grouse shooting here

MEDIA COVERAGE

RSPB press release here

RSPB investigations blog here

Mark Avery’s blog here and here

ITV news here

The Moorland Association’s response to this news has been to publish a fluffy article entitled ‘Testimony to dedication of moorland men‘. No mention of raptor persecution at all. Looks like Director Amanda Anderson still suffering from wilful blindness.

Unbelievable statement from North Yorkshire Police here

Interview with senior RSPB Investigations team member Guy Shorrock on BBC Radio York (starts at 1:45:20, available for 30 days here)

BBC news here

Independent here

Daily Express here

The News Hub here

UPDATE: https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2016/06/01/north-yorks-police-try-to-justify-police-caution-for-criminal-activity-on-grouse-moor/

Gas gun in use on grouse moor in Peak District National Park

As regular blog readers will know, we have an interest in the use of propane gas guns on grouse moors in the English and Scottish uplands.

For those who don’t know, propane gas guns are routinely used for scaring birds (e.g. pigeons, geese) from agricultural crops – they are set up to deliver an intermittent booming noise and the audible bangs can apparently reach volumes in excess of 150 decibels. According to the Purdue University website, 150 decibels is the equivalent noise produced by a jet taking off from 25 metres away and can result in eardrum rupture. That’s quite loud!

The grouse-shooting industry has claimed these are used for scaring ravens, but we argue they are more likely to be used (illegally) to disturb hen harrier breeding attempts. We are interested in the deployment of these bird scarers in relation to (a) their proximity to Schedule 1 (and in Scotland, Schedule 1A bird species) and thus any potential disturbance to these specially protected species and (b) their use in designated Special Protection Areas and thus any potential disturbance caused.

We, and others, have previously blogged about specific instances of gas gun use on grouse moors (e.g. see here and here) and we’ve been pressing the statutory nature conservation organisations (Natural England & Scottish Natural Heritage) to issue urgent guidelines on their use, so far without much success (see here, here, here, here and here).

Meanwhile, grouse moor managers are still using these gas guns. The following photographs were taken on Sunday 22 May 2016 in the Peak District National Park:

Gas gun 1 Broomhead - Copy

Gas gun 2 Broomhead - Copy

Gas gun 3 Broomhead - Copy

Gas gun 4 Broomhead - Copy

This gas gun is on the Barnside Moor, which is part of the Broomhead Estate, owned by Ben Rimington Wilson, a spokesman (see here) for the grouse-shooting industry’s lobby group the Moorland Association. The grouse moors of the Broomhead Estate are part of a regional Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Protection Area (SPA), designated as a site of importance for short-eared owl, merlin, and golden plover.

Now, what’s interesting about the placement of this particular gas gun is that it lies a few metres outside of the SPA boundary, although the gas gun is pointing towards the SPA:

SPA OS - Copy

SPA close up - google map - Copy

What’s interesting is whether this gas gun was deliberately placed outside of the SPA boundary, to avoid having to ask Natural England for deployment consent? Although we would argue that even though the gas gun isn’t placed directly within the SPA, it is placed directly adjacent to it and the noise from that gas gun will definitely resonate across the SPA boundary line, potentially disturbing ground-nesting species such as short-eared owl, merlin and golden plover, for which the site was designated. (Hen harrier is not on the site’s designation list, presumably because when the site was designated, there weren’t any hen harriers nesting there, even though this is prime hen harrier habitat!).

But even though the gun isn’t directly placed within the SPA, it does sit (just) within the SSSI boundary:

SSSI close up - google map - Copy

This leads us to believe that the deployment of this gas gun will require consent from Natural England as it falls under the list of ‘operations likely to damage the special interest of the site’, namely, ‘change in game management and hunting practice’.

Has Natural England given consent for the deployment of this gas gun at this site? If so, how has it justified that deployment? If Natural England hasn’t given consent, is the deployment of this gas gun contrary to section 28 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act?

We don’t know the answers to these questions because we’re still waiting for Natural England to publish its policy on gas gun use, even though this guidance document was promised before the start of the 2016 breeding season!

Natural England needs to pull its finger out, pronto, and publish clear guidelines for use. If you’d like to email Alan Law, Natural England’s Chief Strategy & Reform Officer (he’s the guy who last September told us the guidelines would be available by early 2016) and ask him where that guidance document is, here’s his email address: alan.law@naturalengland.org.uk

You may also remember that a couple of weeks ago, SNH gave their opinion of what we should do if we found a gas gun being deployed on a grouse moor (see here). It was a very confused statement, but part of their advice was that intentional or reckless disturbance of a Schedule 1 species (such as hen harrier or merlin) is an offence and any suspected incidents of this through gas gun use should be reported to the police.

In our view, this would be a big waste of time – we can’t see the police having any interest in investigating gas gun use, and even if they did, they probably wouldn’t know where to start. But, just as a test case, why don’t we report this gas gun to South Yorkshire Police as a suspected wildlife crime (potential reckless or intentional disturbance of a Schedule 1 species) and let’s see what they do with it.

Here is the information you need:

Gas gun grid reference: SK233978, Barnside Moor, Peak District National Park

Date observed in use: 22 May 2016

Please report this to Chief Superintendent David Hartley, South Yorkshire Police’s lead on wildlife crime: david.hartley@southyorks.pnn.police.uk

We’d be very interested in any responses you receive!

And if you’re in email-sending mode, you might also want to sent one to Sarah Fowler, Chief Executive of the Peak District National Park Authority and ask her whether there is a policy for the deployment of bird scaring devices on sensitive moorlands within the National Park. Email: sarah.fowler@peakdistrict.gov.uk

National Trust: bold or bottling it?

It’s been over a month since the National Trust said they were launching an investigation in to what they described as a “suspicious incident” where an armed man was filmed sitting next to a decoy hen harrier on a National Trust-owned grouse moor in the Peak District National Park.

Fake Hen Harrier (1) - Copy

How’s that investigation going? Given that the National Trust knew about this incident when it was first reported to them in February 2016, they’ve had plenty of time to ask questions of their grouse moor tenant and decide on what action, if any, they will take.

As a result of their investigation, we’re expecting them to do one of two things:

  1. Nothing.
  2. Withdraw the tenancy agreement that allows driven grouse shooting on that moor.

The National Trust has previously been bold about withdrawing shooting leases on land it owns. In 2011 it decided not to renew two of three shooting leases on its Wallington Estate in Northumberland (see here), and in 2012 it terminated the lease on a pheasant shoot on the Polesden Lacey Estate in Surrey (see here).

Will the National Trust be bold in the Peak District National Park? We think they’ve got very strong grounds for pulling the grouse-shooting lease in this instance because the grouse moor in question is part of the Peak District Bird of Prey Initiative – an initiative that has utterly failed in its objective of increasing the populations of breeding raptors in the Dark Peak area of the National Park. Presumably the National Trust’s grouse shooting lease includes a clause that demands cooperation from the tenant to reach that objective and if cooperation isn’t forthcoming, the contract can be considered to have been breached?

Let’s ask the General Manager of the National Trust in the Peak District, Jon Stewart, when we might expect to hear the findings of the National Trust’s investigation. Emails to: jon.stewart@nationaltrust.org.uk

We’re also intrigued as to why no official statement about this incident has been offered by the Peak District Bird of Prey Initiative. We’ve heard from individual member organisations such as the Peak District National Park Authority (see here) and the Moorland Association (see here), but there’s been total silence from the collective  BOP Initiative. Isn’t that strange?

The BOP Initiative is chaired by the Peak District National Park Authority and its ecologist, Rhodri Thomas, is the PDNPA’s representative on the BOP Initiative. We’d like to know how the BOP Initiative intends to respond to the video footage and how this incident will affect the progress of this so-called ‘partnership’? Let’s ask him. Emails to: rhodri.thomas@peakdistrict.gov.uk

Mountain hare slaughter set to continue in breach of EU regulations

A couple of weeks ago, Scottish Greens MSP Mark Ruskell lodged the following parliamentary question:

Question S5W-00044, Mark Ruskell (Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Green Party); Lodged: 09/05/2016:

To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on the culling of mountain hares on estates practising driven grouse shooting.

mountain-hare-cull-angus-glens-large - Copy

Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Roseanna Cunningham has now answered with this:

The Scottish Government does not support large, indiscriminate culls of mountain hares in Scotland and recognises the concerns that have been expressed about the status of mountain hare populations in Scotland. The Scottish Government acknowledges that mountain hares are a legitimate quarry species and that there may be local requirements to control mountain hares to protect gamebirds and young trees. Any control of mountain hares should be undertaken in accordance with obligations under the EU Habitats Directive.

Given the concerns about possible over-exploitation, information on the management of hares has been reviewed by independent experts from the Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) Scientific Advisory Committee. This review was published in October 2015 and is available at: http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1765931.pdf. The review identified the need for improved monitoring and data to assess national trends of mountain hare populations.

This work is underway in the form of a collaborative four year study (2014-17) involving SNH and scientists in the James Hutton Institute and the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, on trialling various methods of counting hares. The study has the aim of developing a reliable and cost-effective means of assessing mountain hare population density.

SNH is also working with Scottish Land & Estates to encourage greater transparency in the reasons why estates cull hares and to encourage estates to collaborate and develop a more measured and coordinated approach to sustanable hare management.

END

Oh, where to begin!

The Cabinet Secretary for the Environment says the culls should be done in accordance with obligations under the EU Habitats Directive. Yes, they should be, but they’re not, are they? They can’t possibly be because one of the obligations is a legal requirement to ensure the management of this species “is compatible with the species being maintained at a favourable conservation status“. To assess whether the species’ conservation status is favourable or unfavourable requires decent population-level data to establish the impact of these unregulated mass culls. Those data are not yet available (although Dr Adam Watson has provided long-term mountain hare counts, see below).

The Cabinet Secretary for the Environment says work is underway to get these data, but that work doesn’t finish until 2017. In the meantime, SNH should have applied the precautionary principle and placed a temporary moratorium on mountain hare culling, as they were asked to do in 2015 by ten conservation organisations (see here). SNH has chosen instead to call on sporting estates to undertake ‘voluntary restraint‘, a doomed policy already proven not to be working (e.g. see here and here). Of course this approach isn’t going to work when the estates’ representative organisation, SLE, insists, without supportive evidence, “there is no issue over population reduction” (see here).

The Cabinet Secretary for the Environment refers to an independent review of sustainable moorland management, which included information about mountain hare culling. She mentions that the review identified the need for improved monitoring and data. What she forgot to mention was that this review also included the following statement (see page 20):

Given that culling can reduce mountain hare densities to extremely low levels locally (Laurenson et al., 2003), and population trends are poorly known despite the species being listed under the Habitats Directive, the case for widespread and intensive culling of mountain hares in the interests of louping-ill control has not been made.

She also forgot to mention something else reported in this review, the availability of long-term time series data of mountain hare counts by Dr Adam Watson (see page 21):

These latter data derive from 63 moorland sites, mainly in upland Aberdeenshire, with data in some cases extending back to the 1940s. Initial examination of this remarkable data set provides a strong prima facie case for long term population declines across moorland but not arctic-alpine habitats.

The Cabinet Secretary for the Environment also says that SNH is working with SLE to encourage ‘greater transparency’ about why mountain hares are culled. That’s an interesting one. Earlier this year, SLE provided explanations for why these culls take place. Apparently it’s because “hares can affect fragile habitats through grazing pressure, can spread sheep tick which also affects red grouse, and can cause the failure of tree-planting schemes”. They also said, contradictorily, that mountain hares are culled “to conserve the open heather habitat” (see here). At the time, we took these reasons apart as follows:

“Hares can affect fragile habitats through grazing pressure“. They probably can, although if their natural predators weren’t being exterminated this would lessen any pressure. And would those be the same fragile habitats that are routinely burned with increasing frequency and intensity as part of grouse moor ‘management’, causing industrial-scale environmental damage (e.g. see here and here)?

“Mountain hares can cause the failure of tree-planting schemes“. They probably can, but how many tree-planting schemes are taking place on driven grouse moors? According to Doug McAdam (CEO of SLE), hare culling takes place “to conserve the open heather habitat“. So which is it? It can’t be both.

“Mountain hares can spread sheep tick which also affects red grouse“. Ah, and there it is! What this all comes down to – mountain hares are inconvenient to grouse moor managers whose sole interest is to produce an absurdly excessive population of red grouse so they can be shot for fun.

Given that the independent review, referenced above by the Cabinet Secretary, states that “the case for widespread and intensive culling of  mountain hares in the interests of louping-ill control has not been made”, how come SLE and their member estates are still permitted to carry on with this slaughter?

In summary then, the Scottish Government doesn’t support large, indiscriminate culls of mountain hares, and neither do ten conservation organisations, and neither does a large proportion of the general public who responded angrily to images of this year’s massacre. The culls are in clear breach of the EU Habitats Directive because the impact of culling on the species’ conservation status is unknown, although long-term counts, dating back to the 1940s, provide a strong prima facie case showing long-term population declines of mountain hares on grouse moors.

And yet the culls are set to continue again later this year when the closed season ends on 31 July.

Massive failure by the Scottish Government and its statutory conservation agency SNH.

But watch this space – the charity OneKind is planning to launch a campaign against mountain hare culling – more details to follow later this year.

Scottish gamekeeper fined for leaving loaded gun ‘on hillside’

A Scottish gamekeeper has been fined for abandoning a loaded gun that was found by two hill walkers.

Shaun Wilson, 29, had left his weapon ‘on the hillside above the village of Kippen’ , Stirlingshire, on 6 August 2015. He was fined £675 under the Firearms Act (see BBC news article here).

That description, ‘on a hillside above the village of Kippen’ is interesting. The main ‘hills’ around there are the grouse moors of Burnfoot Estate. That name might ring a bell with some of you. Burnfoot Estate is currently subject to a three-year General Licence Restriction Order, applied by SNH due to “some issues associated with poisoning birds of prey, birds of prey being found poisoned in that location, and illegal use of traps” (see here).

Kippen map

The name Shaun Wilson might also ring a bell. There was a gamekeeper of that name who, two years ago (then aged 27) was investigated for posting a video of himself on Facebook slitting a deer’s throat and drinking its blood (see here). Obviously just another of those strange coincidences.

More procrastination on extending SSPCA powers

sspca logoLast month we blogged about a series of Parliamentary questions relating to wildlife crime that had been lodged by recently elected Scottish Greens MSP Mark Ruskell (see here).

One of those questions was about giving extended powers to the SSPCA:

Question S5W-00030 (Lodged 12/5/2016)

To ask the Scottish Government when it will announce its decision regarding extending the powers of the Scottish SPCA to tackle wildlife crime.

Environment Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham has now responded with this:

A decision on whether to extend the investigatory powers of the Scottish SPCA will be announced in due course.

That’s it. No explanation for the protracted delay (it’s been over five years since the public consultation was first suggested, and twenty months since that public consultation closed) and no time estimate of when this decision might be announced. Just, “in due course“. Marvellous.

A couple of weeks ago we blogged about how Dumfries & Galloway Council had recently given extended powers to the SSPCA to allow them to tackle the illegal puppy farm trade (see here). We argued that if the SSPCA was entrusted with extended powers to tackle serious organised crime, there should be no good reason why they shouldn’t be given extended powers to tackle wildlife crime.

Something else the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment might want to consider is the result of an SSPCA investigation which ended in Edinburgh Sheriff Court yesterday (see here). As a result of a covert surveillance operation, Craig Aitken, 43, pleaded guilty to setting 47 illegal snares, without authorisation, on Seggarsdean Farm in Haddington, East Lothian in January 2015. He was also convicted of stealing some of the SSPCA’s covert cameras, which, unbeknownst to him, had GPS trackers attached which enabled the SSPCA to trace them to Aitken’s home (see here). The evidence against him was so strong that he didn’t contest the charges. Yesterday he was sentenced with a 180 hour Community Payback Order and a six-month Restriction of Liberty Order which requires him to remain at home between the hours of 9pm and 8am. As an aside, someone else with the name Craig Aitken, of the same age, in the same town of Haddington, was convicted in September 2015 for exactly the same offence (setting illegal snares on another farm, caught by an SSPCA covert surveillance operation!) and received a 200-hour Community Service Order (see here). What a coincidence, eh? Those penalties for wildlife crime are really working as a deterrent.

its-not-fair1The reason we’ve mentioned this recent wildlife crime conviction is because this case demonstrates a number of things about the ability and competence of the SSPCA to conduct wildlife crime investigations; things that those opposing extended powers for the SSPCA (Police Scotland, gamekeepers, estate owners etc) said the SSPCA couldn’t do.

One of the main objections they gave to the SSPCA receiving extended powers was the SSPCA’s supposed lack of impartiality. It was claimed that because the SSPCA campaigns for a ban on snares, the charity couldn’t possibly remain impartial when investigating wildlife crimes involving snaring offences. Oops! This recent conviction for snaring offences suggests otherwise.

Another objection was that SSPCA Inspectors don’t undergo “the same rigorous training, selection and vetting” as police officers so they shouldn’t be allowed to undertake criminal investigations. Oops! This recent wildlife crime conviction suggests otherwise.

Another objection was that there may be resistance from the public who view these powers as a traditional remit of the police. Oops! We don’t see the public objecting to this latest wildlife crime conviction on the grounds that the SSPCA investigated and Police Scotland didn’t.

Another objection was that the SSPCA is “unequipped” to deal with RIP(S)A regulations (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which puts strict controls on when surveillance operations are permitted and how they are to be conducted. These regulations only apply to public bodies, e.g. police, customs). Oops! This recent wildlife crime conviction, based on the use of covert surveillance (albeit with the landowner’s permission) suggests otherwise.

Isn’t it about time the Scottish Government stops procrastinating over this issue and gives extended powers to the SSPCA to allow them to bring their expertise and proven skills to bear against those who continue to illegally kill birds of prey? This is supposed to be a National Wildlife Crime Priority. Let’s see Scot Gov treat it as such.

Judicial review underway re: general licence restriction on Raeshaw Estate

Last month we blogged about a pending judicial review of SNH’s decision to apply a three-year General Licence restriction order on Raeshaw Estate in the Scottish Borders for alleged raptor persecution crimes (see here).

We noted that SNH had temporarily suspended the GL restriction order until the judicial review hearing on 20th May.

Last week, the judicial review began at the Court of Session:

Raeshaw Farms Ltd Judicial Review called 20 May 2016b - Copy

It was a starred motion (indicating that the motion was opposed and would require a a court appearance) that was only scheduled for 30 minutes. We’re not entirely sure about the judicial review process but we would guess, for an opposed motion, that a more substantive hearing will be required at a later date.

Meanwhile, SNH has updated its website with the following notice:

Raeshaw SNH temp restriction again 20 May 2016

Whereas the temporary GL restriction on Raeshaw Estate was previously applied until 20th May, SNH has now applied a temporary restriction ‘until further notice’, which means that the Raeshaw Estate is free to carry out trapping activities under the General Licence.

In other words, the three-year GL restriction order that was applied to Raeshaw in November 2015 as a penalty for alleged raptor persecution offences is no longer in place. It’ll be interesting to see, if Raeshaw ‘loses’ the judicial review, whether all these lost months of trapping restrictions will be added to the GL restriction to ensure the estate serves a full three-year penalty.

Scottish landowners still in denial about raptor persecution

Today, new Cabinet Secretary for Land Reform & the Environment, Roseanna Cunningham, will deliver a keynote address at the spring conference of Scottish land owners’ lobby group Scottish Land & Estates (SLE).

According to an amusing article in this morning’s Telegraph, clearly orchestrated by SLE to coincide with this conference, ‘Ministers have been warned they need to re-build trust with Scottish landowners’ who are miffed about the way the Land Reform agenda has been pushed through and are still whining about the reintroduction of sporting rates on their huge multi-million pound shooting estates (see here). The arrogance and sense of entitlement is there for all to see.

Obviously, we have no idea what Roseanna Cunningham will be saying at this conference but we hope that as well as land reform, the issue of raptor persecution will also feature. It’s been five years since she was having to deal with raptor persecution in her former role as Environment Minister and the issue hasn’t gone away. Although, according to SLE, it has.

We’ve been sent a copy of SLE’s Policy Update, an internal document written for SLE members, dated April 2016. Here are some excerpts:

Mountain hares

Although there is no issue over population reduction, it continues to be highly emotive and even a long distance photograph of a cull is enough for the Herald and social media. Meeting arranged with GWCT, SNH, and CNPA [Cairngorms National Park Authority] on 27 April to tighten up joint statement.

So yet again SLE claims ‘there is no issue over population reduction’, even though there isn’t a shred of supportive scientific data to back up this claim. And this is the group that SNH is relying upon to exercise voluntary restraint! In March 2016 we asked SLE to provide evidence that the current mountain hare slaughter was sustainable (see here). No reply.

Raptor persecution maps 2015

A small increase from 18 to 20 recorded incidents, many unrelated to land / sporting management. This issue is dying away statistically and in media interest, but pro-raptor groups in overdrive trying to make new publicity out of it.

So, raptor persecution is acknowledged as a National Wildlife Crime Priority, SLE serves on the PAW Raptor Group, and yet here they are, telling their members that it’s no big deal and it’s just us lot making a big fuss about nothing. They do have a long track record of denial, of course, because it’s in their interest to pretend that everything’s just fine and no further sanctions or legislation is required.

Rather than focus on one year of data (even though those data showed an increase in recorded incidents, not a decline!), SLE would do well to take note of the long-term data trends, all recently published by RSPB Scotland (see here):

A total of 779 birds of prey were confirmed to have been illegally killed during the period 1994-2014, either by poisoning, shooting or trapping. The known victims included 104 red kites, 37 golden eagles, 30 hen harriers, 16 goshawks, 10 white-tailed eagles and 458 buzzards.

In addition to these confirmed victims, a further 171 incidents were documented where poisoned baits and/or non-birds of prey victims were found, including 14 pet cats and 14 pet dogs, and then a further 134 incidents where no victim had been found but clear attempts to target raptors had been uncovered (e.g. illegally-set traps).

Drilling down in to the detail, there’s a useful analysis of land-use type of confirmed poisoning incidents between 2005-2014 (219 incidents). A shocking (or not) 81% of confirmed poisoning incidents during this nine-year period were on land used for game-shooting: 57% on grouse moors and 24% on land managed for lowland pheasant shoots. This tells us a great deal about who is responsible for the vast majority of illegal raptor poisoning. Despite their continued denials and protestations, and their increasingly-desperate attempts to minimise the scale of these crimes (“it’s just a few rogues”, “it’s just a small minority”, “this issue is dying away”), this graphic exposes the criminality at the heart of the game-shooting industry:

RSPB persecution review 1994 2014 land use

And of course, there has also been a recent scientific paper documenting the long-term decline of peregrines on grouse moors in NE Scotland (here), reflecting a problem that is widespread across the Scottish & English uplands (here) and another scientific paper documenting the catastrophic decline of hen harriers on grouse moors in NE Scotland (see here).

A big fuss about nothing, eh? Let’s see if Roseanna Cunningham shares their view. It’s so obvious that with this level of denial, calling for the game shooting industry to self-regulate is utterly futile. If change is going to happen, it will have to be forced upon them.

Petition calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting can be signed HERE