Category: News

Game farm owner convicted of pole trap offence

A two-day trial concluded at Scarborough Magistrates yesterday with the conviction of game farm owner Michael Wood, who was found guilty of permitting a pole trap last June.

Wood owns Westfield Farm in Cropton, North Yorkshire – a pheasant and partridge and duck breeding facility that supplies young birds to the game-shooting industry.

RSPB investigators found five pole traps placed around the rearing pens last summer. These traps are so barbaric they were outlawed over 100 years ago. They are basically a steel spring trap placed on top of a post (and usually nailed to the post with a short chain) so when a raptor lands on it, the trap crushes the bird’s legs and the bird is left dangling upside down for a prolonged and agonising death. Unbelievably, two farm workers were just given police cautions last year for setting these traps – why weren’t they prosecuted?

Wood was seen by the RSPB Investigations Team driving past one of the pole traps. His defence argued that he hadn’t seen it, but the magistrates didn’t believe him and said it was “inconceivable” that he wouldn’t have seen it.

Wood was fined £4,000, and ordered to pay £750 court costs as well as a £120 victim surcharge, amounting to a grand total of £4,870.

Great work by the RSPB Investigations Team (again).

Full details of this case can be read in the RSPB’s press release here

This isn’t Wood’s first conviction. In 2011, Wood and Yorks Sports Ltd (of which Wood was a Director) pleaded guilty to seven offences under the Wildlife & Countryside Act after defying official warnings and releasing thousands of pheasants (for shooting) on a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) when they’d only been given consent to release 500 birds. It was argued the birds had caused ‘significant damage’ to the conservation area. Wood and Yorks Sports Ltd were fined £20,000 each, plus a £15 victim surcharge, plus £125,000 between them towards the prosecutions costs. They also had to pay a £145,000 defence bill. (News article here).

Interestingly, it has been reported (by a media court reporter) that Wood is the Chairman of the Game Farmers’ Association [“Representing the UK’s game farmers and promoting high standards“] although we haven’t been able to find any supportive evidence of his Chairmanship. What we did find on the GFA’s website, though, is that their contact for ‘media and political enquiries’ is one Charles Nodder. Who he? Why, he’s the PR and political adviser of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation. Let’s make a ‘media enquiry’ and ask him whether Wood is the Chair of the GFA, or if not whether he’s simply a member, and if so, whether he’ll be kicked out of the club, and if he isn’t kicked out of the club whether Nodder intends to continue working for an organisation whose membership includes someone convicted of wildlife crime. Emails to: cnodder@msn.com

UPDATE: Looks like someone called Mike Wood is indeed involved with the GFA – helping out on their stand at the CLA Game Fair in 2013. There’s also a charming pic of Nodder meeting Owen Paterson to discuss the GFA’s rearing guide. Read here.

Here’s one of the five pole traps found at Westfield Farm (photo RSPB).

Pole trap 1 of 5 westfield game farm RSPB

 Here’s a graphic example of what can happen when a buzzard lands on a pole trap (NB: this photo was not taken at Westfield Farm).

BZ pole trap c - Copy

Masked gunmen caught on camera attacking goshawk nest in Cairngorms National Park

Police Scotland and the RSPB have released video footage showing a gang of masked gunmen attacking a goshawk nest in the Cairngorms National Park.

The gunmen, wearing balaclavas, were filmed on a secret camera set up to monitor the nest site on Forestry Commission Scotland land at Glen Nochty, Strathdon. They made at least four visits to the nest tree – 14th May 2014 at 10.26hrs and again at 20.08hrs, and 15th May 2014 at 09.11hrs and again at 20.01hrs.

The video has been released in an appeal for information – nine months after the crimes were committed.

You can watch it here. [Update: this video appears to have been removed from YouTube. You can still see it on BBC News website here]

Interestingly, this FCS forest is very close to the boundaries of three grouse moor estates. Now, it’s not apparent from the video whether the criminals are gamekeepers (hard to tell when they wear balaclavas) but we’ll take an educated guess that it isn’t a gang of District Nurses having a bit of recreational downtime in between home visits, out for a little spot of armed trespass, dressed up in camouflage and firing bullets at the nest of a protected species. A species that just happens to be hated by those involved with game-bird shooting.

Media coverage:

BBC news (with a quote from Environment Minister Aileen McLeod) here

RSPB Scotland press statement here

There’s actually been a great deal of media coverage, which is excellent, including P&J, Daily Record, STV News, and the video was broadcast on Reporting Scotland. Strangely, no publicity from the SGA….

Amusingly, this shocking video footage coincides with a campaign currently being run by the Countryside Alliance who are lobbying for police to ‘unmask’ hunt sabs. In the longer term, they also want the next Government to review the law around wearing balaclavas. You can read their campaign notes here – and they really are worth a few minutes of your time. The Countryside Alliance should be careful what they wish for – there’ll be a lot of gamekeepers who won’t be happy if they’re banned from covering their faces while committing their crimes (see recent convictions of balaclava-wearing criminal gamekeepers such as George Mutch and Glenn Brown).

Countryside Alliance masked thugs - Copy

Gamekeeper Neil Wainwright faces trial for alleged mis-use of trap

Shropshire gamekeeper Neil Gordon Wainwright is to face trial accused of alleged mis-use of a Larsen trap in July 2014.

At a plea hearing at Shrewsbury Magistrates last week, Wainwright denied possessing a Larsen trap at Birch Hill Wood in Gatten, Stiperstones on 22 and 28 July 2014. He also denied charges relating to using live quail in the trap to catch wild birds.

He did, however, plead guilty to three other charges relating to the storage of firearms, ammunition, and poison. He admitted failing to comply with his firearms licence by not keeping his ammunition in a secured cabinet at his home on 5th August 2014. He also admitted failing to keep the poison Phostoxin in a secure manner on 5th August 2014.

Wainwright, 54, of Norbury near Bishop’s Castle, will next appear before a District Judge at Telford Magistrates Court on 8th May 2015.

News item from Shropshire Star Jan 2015 here

News item from Shropshire Star Feb 2015 here

They forgot the birds 2

Perhaps this is why landowners and gamekeepers don’t like secret cameras. And this from an industry that is lobbying for licences to kill buzzards because they might eat a few pheasants!

Dumped pheasants Polesdon

Excellent work by investigators from the League Against Cruel Sports.

Full details of where these dumped carcasses were found here.

They Forgot the Birds 1 here

North Yorks Tory candidate thinks grouse shooting is ace

Kevin Hollinrake is the Conservative’s prospective parliamentary candidate, standing in the next general election for the Thirsk & Malton constituency, a Tory ‘safe seat’ in North Yorkshire.

Kevin Hollinrake is an estate agent.

Here are his views on grouse shooting in North Yorkshire, as reported in a local newspaper yesterday:

GROUSE shooting on the North Yorkshire Moors is worth millions of pounds to the local economy, says Kevin Hollinrake, prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for Thirsk and Malton, much of which covers the moors.

Speaking at a meeting with landowners, managers and gamekeepers at Lastingham, he said that grouse moor management was worth some £67 million and provided some 1,500 jobs, as well as safeguarding 860,000 acres of heather moorland.

He praised a £52.5 million annual spend on conservation on the moors, adding that the Moorland Association had played a key part in DEFRA’S hen harrier recovery plan, and lobbied for a crack down on wildlife crime.

“We have in this country, 75 percent of what is left of the world’s heather moorland. Shooting creates the necessary income for its upkeep, along with 42,500 days of work a year.

“It benefits many rural people, from food suppliers to hoteliers and clothing manufacturers to dry stone wallers. When calls are made to ban or licence driven grouse shooting, thought is seldom given to the harmful consequences to rural economies and conservation.”

END

It’s good that he’s lobbying for a crack down on wildlife crime – North Yorkshire is recognised as the worst county in the UK for reported raptor persecution incidents, a title it has held for six of the past seven years (see here), so he’s got his work cut out. It is, of course, purely coincidental that the dominant land-use in North Yorkshire is driven grouse shooting.

In the same article, the following appears:

Robert Benson, chairman of the Moorland Association, said that thanks to careful moorland management and co-operation of gamekeepers, had led to the successful fledgling of 16 hen harrier chicks.

“On the North York Moors we have seen notable improvements in a number of other ‘at risk’ species, such as endangered lapwing, curlew and ring ouzel. Breeding records for merlin are four times more abundant where there are game keepers.”

Mr Benson said peatland habitats, damaged by wildfires, bracken, over-grazing and historic drainage, had been restored. “This helps capture carbon and improve water quality,” he added.

“Without the work and passion of our gamekeepers and land managers, working in tandem with farmers, many moors would revert to scrub and be lost to all those who depend on them.”

END

Surely Mr Benson isn’t trying to suggest that the fledging of 16 hen harrier chicks last year can be hailed as some sort of success? It’s “thanks to careful moorland management and co-operation of gamekeepers” that only four hen harrier nests in the whole of England managed to produce young last year (none of which were on grouse moors in North Yorkshire) – what happened to the other 300+ pairs? Perhaps Mr Benson needs a new soundbite: “Breeding records for hen harriers are 75 times less abundant where there are gamekeepers”.

If you think Mr Hollinrake and Mr Benson are talking out of their arses, you can join 20,767 others who have signed a petition to ban driven grouse shooting HERE

Does National Gamekeepers Org spokesman have a headmaster fetish?

Following on from today’s earlier blog about the dismissal of video evidence in a case against a grouse moor gamekeeper (see here), the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation has issued the following hilarious press statement:

RSPB Shamed In Court

Friday 13th Feb 2015

The National Gamekeepers’ Organisation has said the the RSPB should hang its head in shame after it was revealed at Northallerton Magistrates Court on 12 February 2015 that the bird charity had provided unlawfully obtained covert surveillance evidence from a hidden camera in order to support the prosecution of a gamekeeper from North Yorkshire. The court dismissed the case after hearing legal arguments that an “abuse of process” had taken place and that the grouse keeper, who has been described as a man of “impeccable character”, could not receive a fair trial.

The case, brought by the Crown Prosecution Service, had centred on evidence that had been obtained unlawfully by the RSPB. The charges related to the quality of the water and the shelter provided for decoy birds in a cage trap during April 2014.

A spokesman for the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation said: “The RSPB should be hanging its head in shame today after providing unlawfully obtained evidence to support the prosecution of a gamekeeper. The RSPB was so scurrilous as to plant a covert surveillance camera, and film for more than 380 hours, without the permission of the landowner, nor with any lawful justification. It’s a disgrace that the RSPB – now widely seen as a self-styled wildlife police force – should operate in this manner. The RSPB needs to get its house in order. “

He added: “It makes us wonder whether the RSPB may be out of control? The fact that this case was dismissed so swiftly is in our view perhaps indicative of the depths to which the RSPB will stoop in order to create the illusion, both for the court and for the public, of a gamekeeper being involved in wildlife crime. The RSPB is, it seems, singlehandedly destroying its own reputation and credibility by the use of covert surveillance cameras. How can anyone trust its word in the future? We hope the RSPB has now learned its lesson, its knuckles having been soundly rapped by the decision of the court. We hope it has the decency to apologise to all concerned.”

Mr Sleightholm was represented by leading country sports barrister Peter Glenser, of 9 Bedford Row, and specialist solicitor, Tim Ryan, of Warners Solicitors.

The NGO would like to remind everyone who controls birds under the General Licences of the importance of following the licences to the letter.

END

It sounds like the NGO’s spokesperson has got some sort of Headmaster fetish.

All quite comical, until you realise that the NGO is supposedly a partner of the RSPB on the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime (PAW). Hard to believe, isn’t it?

And let’s not forget, the NGO is the same organisation that welcomes members with poisoning-related convictions (see here).

Not to worry, it won’t be long until another member of this illustrious organisation finds himself with a conviction for wildlife crime and then we can all ask the NGO to pull down their tweeds, touch their toes and prepare for six of the best.

Gamekeeper trial collapses after court dismisses RSPB video evidence

The case against Head gamekeeper Ian Sleightholm of the Bolton Hall Estate in North Yorkshire collapsed yesterday after magistrates at Northallerton ruled the RSPB’s video evidence inadmissible.

Sleightholm had been accused of alleged mis-use of a cage trap – specifically that the trap he was operating did not have adequate shade and that the water provided was unsuitable, in contravention of the terms of the General Licence.

The court ruled that the RSPB’s video evidence amounted to ‘an abuse of process’ because RSPB investigations staff “were trespassing on another farmer’s land when they visited the site, saw the trap and set up covert surveillance cameras”. The court ruled that because Sleightholm was unaware of the cameras, ‘he didn’t have the opportunity to discuss the issues with the RSPB or prepare his defence’ and this denied the accused the opportunity of a fair trial.

Eh?

The magistrates also ruled that the case should be dismissed because the only evidence put forward was photographic. It was argued that samples of the water should also have been collected to determine whether it was suitable or unsuitable drinking water.

This is fascinating. According to the terms of the English General Licence (under which Sleightholm was operating the trap), the following criteria apply:

“Water must always be available to decoy birds and drinkable; it should be free from chemical additives and changed regularly to ensure that it is clean“.

As far as we’re aware, there is no legally-binding definition of what constitutes ‘drinkable’ water for birds. There’s plenty of legislation defining ‘drinkable’ water that is fit for human consumption (e.g. The European Drinking Water Directive) but these standards are unlikely to be applicable to water provided for decoy birds. So quite what test parameters the magistrates would be looking for to demonstrate that the water was suitable or unsuitable is a bit of a mystery.

We’d have thought that it’s pretty obvious when water is ‘clean’ or not, and photographic evidence should suffice. If the water container contains, say, green sludge, most people would consider that to be unclean. The terms of the General Licence do not define what constitutes “changed regularly” – does that mean daily, weekly, monthly, annually? Once again, the vagueness of the General Licence conditions do not stand up to legal scrutiny.

The collapse of this case is a bit of a surprise. Video evidence has long been considered admissible in English courts (as opposed to the difficulty of using it in the Scottish courts) and it’ll be interesting to see how the ruling in this case affects future cases where video evidence plays a central role in the prosecution’s case.

As you can imagine, there has been much crowing from the Dark Side about this result, and we were particularly interested in the following tweet from Duncan Thomas:

Duncan Thomas tweet RSPB covert video case

The name Duncan Thomas may sound familiar to some of you. He is a former Police Wildlife Liaison Officer with Lancashire Constabulary and now works as the North West Regional Officer for BASC. We recently blogged about him here. BASC is a member of the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime (PAW). Do you think his published opinion (which, incidentally, was also re-tweeted by the National Gamekeepers Organisation) is conducive to ‘partnership’ working, or do you think it exposes the ‘partnership’ sham for what it actually is?

UPDATE 20:00hrs: Does the spokesman of the National Gamekeeper’s Organisation have a headmaster fetish?

Interesting bedfellows 2

Some of you may have seen news coverage of PM David Cameron’s secret Conservative Black & White Ball which took place at the Grosvenor House in Mayfair on Tuesday night. This was a fundraising event designed to boost the coffers of the Conservative Party in the run up the general election.

Some details of the event were reported here.

What interested us about this event was one of the auction lots – an opportunity to shoot 500 gamebirds, which sold for an incredible £110,000.

Naturally, we were interested in the location of this shoot and a bit of digging turned up this image from the auction booklet:

Pheasant shoot conservation ball auction

What’s interesting about this venue isn’t necessarily who owns it (some Lord or other) but rather, who is involved with the shooting rights. This is where it gets really interesting.

Apparently, the shooting rights on the Maristow and Bickleigh shoots have been let ‘in recent seasons’ by Mr Mark Osborne’s agency:

Osborne let estates maristow and bickleigh

Mark Osborne, who he? If you don’t know, try googling ‘Mark Osborne grouse’……or, read this.

Interesting bedfellows indeed.

Hen harrier: ’cause of death withheld’

hh LAURIE CAMPBELLLast June we blogged about an illegally-killed hen harrier that had been found dead on moorland near Muirkirk in south west Scotland. The adult female’s corpse was discovered close to a nest containing two live chicks (see here).

At the time, Police Scotland refused to reveal the cause of death. Det. Inspector Graham Duncan of Kilmarnock CID was quoted as follows:

“Whilst at this time we cannot divulge how the bird was killed, we do believe it was the result of a criminal act and we need to establish why this has happened“.

Pretty much everyone  in the country will know exactly ‘why this has happened’ – well, everyone it seems except Kilmarnock CID.

We suggested the harrier had probably been shot, although one of our readers commented that it could also have been clubbed to death – as has happened previously to hen harriers at Muirkirk.

Eight months on and the cause of death is still being withheld. Here’s what the latest SASA report says about this case:

‘Cause of death withheld due to specialist knowledge‘.

Marvellous.

It’s also interesting to note that SNH has not enforced a General Licence restriction on the land where this bird was found. Just as we discussed yesterday with the case of the poisoned red kite (see here), the illegal killing of this harrier seems to meet all the criteria needed for immediate enforcement action:

This hen harrier is not the first to be illegally-killed in the Muirkirk area – it’s one of many in a long, long line – read this article from 2008(!) detailing what was going on in this so-called Hen Harrier Special Protection Area; the conservation impact of killing a hen harrier is obvious; and the evidence [her carcass] was fresh.

So why the delay in enforcement?

Why is it so difficult to get the police (and in this case, SNH) to do their jobs properly?

SNH slow to enforce general licence restriction for poisoned red kite

It’s been four months since SNH set in place its procedures for restricting the use of General Licences on land where evidence of raptor crime is apparent.

Rolled out on 6th October 2014 (see here), this new measure was to be back-dated to incidents that have occurred since 1st January 2014. And there are plenty of those, some of which have reached the public domain and some of which have been deliberately kept quiet.

One of those which has been kept quiet is the illegal poisoning of a red kite which was found dead in central Scotland last July (seven months ago). It had died after ingesting the banned poison Carbofuran.

A couple of weeks ago we blogged about this particular case (see here) and we encouraged blog readers to email Andrew Bachell, SNH’s Director of Operations, to ask whether a General Licence restriction had been enforced. Here’s his response:

Dear XXXXX

Thank you for your e-mail. No restrictions have yet been implemented on a General Licence, including for this case.

We all find crimes such as these abhorrent and we, along with Scottish Ministers are fully committed to tackling wildlife crime. The restrictions on the use of General Licences are one tool we can use to help. In order to do so, we have been meeting regularly with the Police to review and discuss all evidence of bird-crimes that occurred in 2014 in line with our decision-making framework (see http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A1417398.pdf).

This document highlights that the decision to restrict the use of a General Licence will be based on evidence provided by Police Scotland and will be made on a case-by-case basis. In making a decision each piece of evidence will be assessed against criteria including:

– The strength of evidence that those activities had been carried out by owners or managers of that land

– The number or frequency of such instances

– The actual or potential conservation impact of those activities;

– The age of the evidence.

– Any history of previous, similar instances.

Whilst no restriction has yet been published, as soon as we were informed by Police Scotland about this case it has been under consideration by SNH against these criteria and we have been in close contact with the Police as the investigations continue. We will publish any restrictions on the website as and when they are implemented. In the meantime, I trust you can understand we cannot discuss individual cases, and particularly ones which are subject to ongoing police investigations such as this one.  

Yours sincerely

Andrew Bachell

Director of Operations

Scottish Natural Heritage

It’s a predictable response in that it doesn’t tell us very much other than the case is under consideration. What it doesn’t explain is the delayed enforcement action. When you consider that the decision whether or not to restrict the General Licence is based on a civil burden of proof rather than a criminal burden of proof (i.e. a conviction), it’s not clear why SNH is waiting to hear about the on-going police investigation. When you look at the other criteria that SNH is using to assess these cases, we believe the criteria for enforcement action have been met: This poisoned red kite is not the first case of raptor persecution in this area (although no known prior convictions but that shouldn’t matter because criminal burden of proof isn’t required); the conservation impact of poisoning a red kite is obvious; and the poisoned carcass (i.e. the evidence) was fresh enough for SASA to determine that the bird had been poisoned by Carbofuran.

So why the delay?

Perhaps we’re being unfair and SNH has already issued a restriction notice and it has been challenged/appealed by the landowner (as is his/her right under the terms of SNH’s restriction framework). Indeed, we’d be extremely surprised if any landowner didn’t challenge/appeal a restriction of this type, given the problems of using a civil burden of proof for enforcement measures.

This case will be an interesting one to watch. Let’s hope that whatever the outcome, SNH will demonstrate some transparency and explain the reasons for either the failed or successful enforcement.

Red kite photo by David Tomlinson