Category: News

SSPCA consultation: Scot Gov ‘ignores’ 7,014 signatures

sspca logoToday, the Scottish Government has published its analysis of the public responses to the SSPCA consultation. It is quite extraordinary.

As you’ll recall, the public consultation was established to seek views on whether the SSPCA should be given increased powers to enable them to tackle a wider suite of wildlife crimes than they currently undertake (for background see here).

The consultation closed on 1st Sept 2014. In October 2014, Scot Gov published copies of the responses (or at least those where the respondent had agreed to publication). A few days later, we blogged about our rudimentary analysis of those responses and exposed some pretty deep-seated hypocrisy amongst some of the respondents (see here).

Today’s publication from Scot Gov provides a far more comprehensive analysis of the responses, but doesn’t provide a decision one way or the other – that will come “in due course“.

The Government’s analysis is detailed and informative. It’s clear that they are taking this consultation seriously and are doing their best to be transparent about the process. That’s very welcome.

However, after scrutinising their analysis, we are concerned about the way some of the responses have been assessed.

According to the report, 242 responses were given to Question 1 of the consultation. That question was as follows:

Q1. Do you agree that the law in Scotland should be changed to give the SSPCA the powers as set out in section 4.1 [of the consultation document]?

Apparently, only 32% of respondents said ‘Yes’; 67% said ‘No’.

Those figures indicate that over two-thirds of respondents did not support the proposed extension of powers for the SSPCA.

But wait a minute….. when you actually look at the detail of their analysis, that’s not the case at all, and in fact, those supporting the extension of powers for the SSPCA amount to 97% of respondents, not 32%. That’s quite a discrepancy! How can that be? Here’s how…

You may remember that during the consultation period, a petition was launched by a campaigner, asking the public to support an extension of powers for the SSPCA. We blogged about it here. The petition explicitly stated that by signing it, petitioners would be supporting an increase of powers for the SSPCA. Here are the actual words:

“By signing, you agree that the laws in Scotland should be changed to give the SSPCA the powers set out in section 4.1 of the consultation document“.

In effect, this statement is asking petitioners to respond to Q1 of the consultation.

7,015 people signed this petition. In other words, 7,015 people supported giving the SSPCA increased powers.

What the Scottish Government has done, in its analysis, is to treat those 7,015 supportive signatures as ONE SINGLE RESPONSE. Effectively, 7,014 individual responses have been ignored.

Why have they done that? We don’t know. Their report acknowledges the petition, and the 7,015 signatures, and states that the petition has been treated as a single response, but gives no explanation why.

The report also reveals that at least 17 responses were believed to be part of, or prompted by, a ‘campaign’ by this blog. Those 17 responses do not appear to have been amalgamated into one.

Also, the report reveals that at least 70 responses were believed to be part of, or prompted by, a ‘campaign’ by the SGA. Those 70 responses do not appear to have been amalgamated into one.

So why were 7,015 petition responses, obviously part of a ‘campaign’, reduced to one single response, when responses from two other ‘campaigns’ were not?

Let’s assume those 7,015 responses had been treated as individual responses. That would put the number of respondents who answered Q1 at 7,256 respondents (not 242 as the Govt claims).

Of those 7,256 respondents, 7,093 of them said they supported increased powers for the SSPCA. That’s 97% of the total respondents, not 32%.

Of the 7,256 respondents, only 163 of them said they did not support increased powers for the SSPCA. That’s only 2% of all respondents, not 67%.

We’re pretty sure that those 7,014 individuals who signed the petition to support an increase of powers for the SSPCA will not be best pleased at being ignored.

Having said all that, we don’t think this consultation is a numbers game. And even if it was, the Govt has a bit of a track record of ignoring public opinion gleaned from consultations (e.g. see here).

We’re going to have to wait and see what Environment Minister Aileen McLeod decides “in due course” but hopefully she will pay attention to the significant public support for increased SSPCA powers, as demonstrated by those 7,015 people who signed a petition thinking that their opinion would count for something.

The Govt’s analysis of the consultation responses can be downloaded here:

Scot Gov analysis of SSPCA consultation responses Jan 2015

 

Hawk and Owl Trust getting it badly wrong

Hen harrierUp until yesterday, we had a lot of respect and admiration for the Hawk & Owl Trust. They’ve got some fantastic staff and volunteers, their conservation work has been exemplary, as has their educational work, and they’ve stood shoulder to shoulder with the rest of us to make a stand against the illegal persecution of raptors. Such was their unity, in 2013 they even walked away from the ridiculous Hen Harrier Dialogue shortly after the RSPB and the Northern England Raptor Forum had walked. They were one of us, with shared ideals and whose patience with the grouse moor owners had been sucked dry. Read their exit statement here.

So it was with an overwhelming sense of shock and disbelief yesterday that we found out the Hawk & Owl Trust’s Board of Trustees had, late last year, “agreed unanimously that a hen harrier brood management scheme trial (NB trial) is the way forward for the recovery of hen harrier populations“.

That is a direct quote from the Hawk & Owl Trust’s Chair, Philip Merricks.

To read more about this staggering statement, read this and this (including the comments) on Mark Avery’s blog.

WTF?

What has changed within the grouse-shooting industry since the Hawk & Owl Trust penned their exit letter from the Hen Harrier Dialogue in 2013? Absolutely nothing. The industry is still deeply in denial that it is involved in any way with the illegal persecution of hen harriers, the English hen harrier population is still on its knees as a direct result of illegal persecution, and the grouse-shooting industry is still firmly based on widespread criminality. The only thing that has changed is that the Hawk & Owl Trust has a new Chair – Mr Merricks.

Later in the day, and in response to the outcry on social media, the Hawk & Owl Trust tried to clarify their position with a further statement from Mr Merricks – see here. It hasn’t inspired much confidence. Apparently, the Trustees have come up with two “immoveable conditions” that would need to be agreed by all parties before the Trust will engage in more detailed talks with DEFRA. Those two conditions are as follows:

1. “All hen harriers fledged within a brood management scheme trial would be satellite tagged so that their movements could be tracked. And the knowledge that they were tagged (and the fear that other HHs might be) would prevent any gamekeepers from shooting them in the sky“.

This is so extraordinarily naive it beggars belief. Surely the Hawk & Owl Trust are aware that 37 of the 47 hen harriers sat tagged between 2007-2014 are listed as ‘missing’? That’s a staggering 78.7%. Only four tagged birds were known to still be alive in Oct 2014 (see here). Fitting a sat tag to a hen harrier does not “prevent gamekeepers shooting them in the sky” (nor catching them in spring traps and clubbing them to death, or stalking them at their night roosts and filling them with lead shot as they huddle on the ground).

2. “Should any Moorland Association, Game & Wildlife Trust, or National Gamekeepers Organisation member be proved to have illegally interfered with a hen harrier nest or to have persecuted a hen harrier on their grouse moors, the Hawk & Owl Trust would pull out its expertise from the brood management scheme trial“.

Again, complete naivety. The key word here is ‘proved’. By ‘proved’, do they mean a conviction? It’s hard to ‘prove’ criminal behaviour when birds, and their sat tags, suddenly ‘disappear’, and the grouse-shooting industry denies any knowledge of, and/or involvement in, any criminal activity. Even if one of them did slip up and leave enough evidence for a subsequent prosecution, the court case would likely take a few years to conclude and in the meantime, the Hawk & Owl Trust would have to continue to remove hen harriers from grouse moors because they wouldn’t yet have the ‘proof’ that one of their partners had been involved with the crime.

There is a tiny glimmer of hope. A further statement on the Hawk & Owl Trust website says this:

“Addressing raptor persecution is a pre-requisite of our talking to DEFRA and landowners. Until this issue is addressed in a satisfactory manner, any form of management of hen harrier is impossible“.

The questions is, how will the Hawk & Owl Trust define “addressed in a satisfactory manner“? That could mean anything. And will it apply just to hen harrier persecution or will it include all the other persecuted raptor species that are either found on (or more often ‘disappear’ on) these moors?

Depending on how the Hawk & Owl Trust defines this condition, there’s every chance that the brood management scheme will never see the light of day because, as we all know only too well, the grouse-shooting industry has been reliant on criminal behaviour for more than a century and it shows no sign of changing.

But let’s just suppose for a second that the Hawk & Owl Trust IS satisfied that illegal persecution has been “addressed in a satisfactory manner” and they do decide to go ahead and partner with the grouse-shooting industry to remove hen harriers from grouse moors…

In our view, (and it’s shared by many others if you read the comments on Mark’s blog and on social media), the Hawk & Owl Trust would be heading for hell in a handbasket with this move. The issue is not just about illegal persecution – there are many wider associated issues about the questionable management of intensively managed grouse moors, and there’s also the fundamental ethical issue: why should one of our most treasured and relatively rare (even if it wasn’t being persecuted) species be removed from grouse moors, just so a minority group can farm an artificially-high population of red grouse so they can brag to their mates about how many they’ve shot? By partnering with the grouse-shooting industry on a brood management scheme, the Hawk & Owl Trust would be tacitly supporting these practices.

We think the Hawk & Owl Trust has under-estimated the impact this move may have on their organisation. There is a high risk that (a) they’ll lose their President, Chris Packham (we’ve yet to hear his views but we look forward to them in due course); (b) they’ll lose a lot of members (although they may gain a lot of members from within the grouse-shooting industry) and (c) they’ll lose their hard-earned credibility within the conservation community. That would be a great shame.

Hen harrier photo by Mark Hamblin

UPDATE 7th February 2015: Chris Packham resigns from Hawk & Owl Trust (here).

Balaclava sales set to rise

Daily Mail Bloody battle of the glens (2)The angst generated by the successful use of video evidence to convict gamekeeper George Mutch continues, as does the game-shooting lobby’s pathetic attempts to discredit the RSPB….

The following excerpts are from a recent article in the Mail, written by Jonathan Brocklebank:

The camera was hidden in a pile of twigs deep inside a sporting estate whose owner had no idea that it had been infiltrated by Europe’s wildlife charity.

But then, RSPB Scotland needs no invitation or permission to launch covert surveillance ops on private land. These days, it gives its own go-aheads.

So it was that gamekeeper George Mutch, 48, came to be filmed with a juvenile goshawk he beat to death with a stick on the Kildrummy Estate, Aberdeenshire. He began a four month jail sentence this week after damning footage showed him using two traps to catch birds of prey.

His apparent motive was to protect pheasants from the raptors, thus ensuring a plentiful supply of game birds for the shooting parties whose business helps keep such estates alive. Mutch, thought to be the first person ever to be jailed in Scotland for killing a bird of prey, will win no sympathy from animal lovers.

But the court case did not simply highlight the inhumane behaviour of a lone gamekeeper who brought disgrace upon his profession. It also served as a demonstration of the now immense power of the charity whose evidence convicted him.

That power, say ever-growing numbers of critics, leaves few areas of outdoor and rural life untouched.

[There follows some predictably tedious claims made by Botham’s You Forgot The Birds campaign, whose failed complaints about the RSPB to the Charity Commission Mr Brocklebank failed to mention (see here), and how some landowners are erecting signs saying RSPB Not Welcome (see here). It then continues….]

During Mutch’s trial, Aberdeen Sheriff Court was told the RSPB routinely enters estates without asking the landowners and, once inside, staff are free to use hidden cameras to gather ‘data’.

When questioned in court, Ian Thomson, the charity’s head of investigations, explained why they needed no permission. “Because we are entering an area for scientific study, we feel we are using our access rights under the Land Reform Act”.

Is it, then, acceptable for RSPB officials to march onto a private estate and set up equipment to secretly video employees?

It seems so. A spokesman for the charity told the Mail: “In Scotland, the Land Reform Act (2003) enshrined a legal “right to roam” and this includes access for survey and research purposes, provided this is carried out responsibly”.

He said the shocking images captured on the video spoke for themselves.

Notwithstanding Mutch’s appalling actions, there is a distinct air of discomfort in the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association (SGA) over the means by which the RSPB’s evidence was obtained.

A spokesman for the organisation said it seemed wrong for individuals “from one particular profession” to be under surveillance in their workplace without their knowledge.

He added: “Is it the case now that charities can do this rather than the police – and is this the correct thing?

They have said they used their rights of access to go on to the land to do this. Really, they should have asked the landowner out of courtesy, if anything. Although it is not sacrosanct in law to do so, I think it would rile people a lot less if there were a little bit more cooperation from organisations such as the RSPB.

These are the things that lead to the breakdown of trust. If they did things a little bit more with due respect, they would find themselves in a lot less problems”.

His words hint at both a clash of cultures and at competing interests in the schism between senior figures in the charity and the ‘tweedies’ who own and manage vast swathes of the Scottish countryside.

While Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) routinely issues licences to farmers to control wildlife which threatens their livestock, it has never issued a licence to a gamekeeper or landowner to control any species threatening birds kept for game, which also count as livestock under the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981. The reasons for this, gamekeepers believe, is obvious: politics.

[The rest of the article covers complaints from a gamekeeper on the Lochnell Estate in Argyll about people turning up unannounced to monitor raptor nests; how many members the RSPB has; how much income the RSPB generates; the RSPB’s involvement in the renewal energy debate; how the RSPB is seen as the ‘go to’ organisation for advice on developments; how arrogant the RSPB is; and ends with the question: Is there a time, perhaps, when a charity just becomes too big?]

ENDS

So, the SGA thinks that wildlife crime investigators should let landowners know, in advance, of their arrival on a privately-owned estate. They seem to be missing the point. The landowner can now be held criminally vicariously liable for some crimes against raptors that are carried out by their gamekeepers; what do you think is the first thing the landowner would do, if he/she was notified that wildlife crime investigators were on their way? Advanced warning would hardly be in the interest of an investigation, (or justice), would it? Besides, as was pointed out in the article, nobody has to give advanced warning to a landowner of an impending visit and as long as they act responsibly once on the land, they’re well within their rights – that’s kind of the point of the Land Reform Act.

And what’s all this guff about gamekeepers have never been issued an SNH licence to ‘control’ (kill) “any species” that is perceived as a threat to their game birds? What utter nonsense! Gamekeepers routinely use the SNH General Licences to ‘control’ (kill) corvids. Ironically, this is what Mutch was supposed to be doing when he was filmed killing a trapped goshawk and shoving two other raptors in sacks and walking off with them. Sounds to us like the SGA are trying to play the victim card, again, albeit unsuccessfully.

McAdam 1The SGA aren’t the only ones up in arms about the admissibility of the RSPB’s video footage which was used to devastatingly good effect in the Mutch trial.

Here’s what the CEO of Scottish Land & Estates (SLE), Doug McAdam, wrote in last week’s SLE e-newsletter:

“There can be no doubt that the custodial sentence handed down this week to a gamekeeper convicted of wildlife crime will send a very strong message out to those who continue to break the law. The illegal killing of any bird of prey is unacceptable and anyone who engages in such activity can, rightly, expect to feel the full weight of the law.

However, this case has raised some fundamental issues regarding access rights and the law as it becomes clear that a central party to this investigation [he means the RSPB] has chosen to totally disregard Scottish Government approved guidance contained in the Scottish Outdoor Access Code regarding undertaking survey work on someone else’s land. This is a serious matter in its own right, but it also reaches well beyond matters of wildlife crime, crossing in to areas such as new development and planning work where it could have some serious implications”.

Why is this “a serious matter”? It’s no such thing (unless you happen to be CEO of an organisation that just wants to have another go at discrediting the RSPB or is concerned about what future video footage may reveal). The Scottish Outdoor Access Code is just that – it’s a code, not a statutory instrument. It has as much legal influence as the Green Cross Code. It is trumped, magnificently, by the 2003 Land Reform Act. The totally independent Sheriff in the Mutch trial (who, don’t forget, was brought in because the defence thought that the original Sheriff, as an RSPB member, might be biased – see here) deemed that, in this instance, the RSPB video footage was admissible.

That’s not to say that other video footage will be deemed admissible in other trials – it will depend entirely on the circumstances of the case. In the Mutch trial, the RSPB argued successfully that their cameras were not in place to ‘catch someone at it’ – they had been placed as part of a long-term study in to crow cage trap use. That their footage captured Mutch engaging in his disgusting crimes was just a very happy coincidence.

You have to wonder, with all this consternation from the game-shooting crowd, just what it is they’re so frightened that covert cameras might record….

Now might be a good time to buy some shares in balaclava-making companies.

Police search notorious raptor poisoning blackspot

Drumbanagher NI police search Jan 2015Police in Northern Ireland last week joined forces with officers from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency and the Health & Safety Executive (NI) to conduct a search of premises in one of the region’s most notorious raptor- poisoning blackspots.

The search focused on premises in the Drumbanagher area of Co. Armagh following the discovery of a Carbofuran-poisoned buzzard last October. The Drumbanagher/Poyntzpass area is known for its commercial game-shooting interests.

A dead cat was found during the search and has been sent for analysis.

We’ve blogged about this location before. Here’s the list of known (to us) victims:

2006: 1 x poisoned buzzard (type of poison unknown).

2008: 4 x poisoned buzzards (Alphachloralose).

2009: 2 x poisoned red kites (Alphachloralose). One bird survived, the other one didn’t.

2011: 1 x dead buzzard found under a hedge. Too decomposed for analysis.

2011: 3 x dead buzzards, suspected poisoning, but carcasses removed before police attendance. 1 x poisoned magpie (Alphachloralose).

2012: Another poisoned buzzard (Alphachloralose), reportedly the ’36th dead buzzard’ found in this area.

2014: 1 x poisoned buzzard (Carbofuran).

Our previous blogs on this area here and here.

Article on last week’s police search from Farming Life here

RSPB Investigations Team: 1; Countryside Alliance: 0

Last October, the Countryside Alliance launched a scathing attack on the RSPB’s latest annual Birdcrime Report (Birdcrime 2013). The link to their article has mysteriously ‘disappeared’ from their website, so here’s a copy we took:

Thursday, 30 October 2014, Countryside Alliance website:

Countryside Alliance Director for Shooting Adrian Blackmore writes: The RSPB’s Birdcrime Report for 2013, which was published on Thursday 30th October 2014, provides a summary of the offences against wildlife legislation that were reported to the RSPB in 2013. It should be noted that in 2009, the RSPB took the decision to focus on bird crime that affected species of high conservation concern, and crime that it regarded as serious and organized. The figures supplied do not therefore give a total figure for wild bird crime in the UK in 2013, and they are not comparable with figures provided for years prior to 2009.

As is becoming increasingly the case, the report makes sweeping allegations against the shooting community, and grouse shooting in particular – allegations that are not consistent with the evidence provided. It claims that activity on grouse moors is having a serious impact on some of our most charismatic upland birds, and that current measures have failed to find a solution. The report claims that “over the years, a steady stream of grouse moor gamekeepers have been prosecuted for raptor persecution crimes”, and lists each of the offences for which those gamekeepers have been found guilty between 2001 and 2013. Over that 13 year period, 20 gamekeepers employed on grouse moors (an average of 1.5 per year) are shown as having been prosecuted, but according to the RSPB’s birdcrime reports for each of those years, the total number of individual prosecutions involving wild birds totalled 526 individuals. Given that grouse moor keepers therefore represent a mere 4% of those prosecuted in the courts, one can only wonder why the RSPB should choose not to focus on the occupations of the other 96%.

The RSPB also states in the report that “it believes it is the shooting industry as a whole, not individual gamekeepers, that is primarily responsible for raptor persecution in the UK”. It has therefore repeated its call for: political parties to introduce licensing of driven grouse shooting after the election; the introduction of an offence of vicarious liability in England; increasing the penalties available to courts for wildlife offences; and for game shooting to be regulated with an option to withdraw the ‘right’ of an individual to shoot game or businesses to supply shooting services for a fixed period following conviction for a wildlife or environmental offence.

For the third year running, the RSPB has included a piece of research in its Birdcrime Report that is intentionally misleading. Both the 2011 and 2012 reports covered in detail a research paper which claimed that peregrines on or close to intensive grouse moor areas bred much less successfully than those in other habitats, and that persecution was the reason for this. That same research paper is covered again in the 2013 Birdcrime report. The research in question used data from 1990 – 2006 and at the time it was published a representation was made to the National Wildlife Crime Unit which resulted in a caveat being circulated to all Police Wildlife Crime Officers in the UK explaining that the data used in the paper was out of date, and that in using such information there was danger that the research paper suggested a current situation. For the RSPB is well aware of that caveat, and to include this once again makes a complete mockery of its previously stated belief that reliable data are essential to monitoring the extent of wildlife crime.

Summary of statistics

341 reported incidents of illegal persecution in 2013 – a reduction of 24% since 2012 when there were 446 reported incidents, and well below the previous 4 year average of 573.

164 reported incidents of the shooting and destruction of Birds of Prey which included the confirmed shooting of 49 individual birds of which only 7 took place in counties associated with grouse shooting in the North of England.

74 reports of poisoning incidents involving the confirmed poisoning of 58 Birds of Prey of which only 2 occurred in counties in the North of England where grouse shooting occurs.

In total, there were 125 confirmed incidents of illegal persecution against Birds of Prey in 2013. Just 18 of those occurred in counties in the North of England where grouse shooting takes place, and none of those have been linked to grouse shooting.

Of the 32 individual prosecutions involving wild birds in 2013, only 6 individuals were game keepers, and one of those was found not guilty. Therefore, of those prosecuted, only 16% were gamekeepers and only 6% of the 32 cases involved birds (buzzards) that had been killed. Only one of the cases concerned an upland keeper employed by an estate with grouse shooting interests, and that case did not involve the destruction of a bird of prey.

Of the 14 incidents of nest robberies reported in 2013, only 3 were confirmed, one of which involved the robbery of at least 50 little tern nests.

There is no evidence to support the RSPB’s allegation of persecution of birds of prey by those involved in grouse shooting. The RSPB’s Birdcrime Reports show that between 2001 and 2013 there were 526 individual prosecutions involving wild birds, and according to its 2013 report only 20 of those individuals (4%) were actually gamekeepers employed on grouse moors.

Land managed for grouse shooting accounts for just 1/5th of the uplands of England and Wales.

The populations of almost all our birds of prey are at their highest levels since record began, and only the hen harrier and the white-tailed eagle are red listed as species of conservation concern.

REPORTED INCIDENTS IN 2013

In 2013, the RSPB received 341 reported incidents of wild bird crime in the UK, the lowest figure since 2009. This represents a reduction of 24% since 2012 when there were 446 reported incidents, and well below the previous 4 year average of 573.

SHOOTING INCIDENTS

As in previous years, the, the most commonly reported offence in 2013 was the shooting and destruction of birds of prey, with 164 reported incidents in 2013. Of these, the shooting of 49 birds of prey are shown in the report as being confirmed, of which 7 were in counties of the North of England where grouse shooting takes place. The remaining 23 incidents that were confirmed in England occurred elsewhere.

POISON ABUSE INCIDENTS

During 2013 there were 74 reports of poisoning incidents involving the confirmed poisoning of 58 Birds of Prey of which only 2 occurred in counties in the North of England where grouse shooting takes place:

ILLEGAL TRAPPING AND NEST DESTRUCTION

There were 18 confirmed incidents of illegal trapping of birds of prey in 2013, and no confirmed cases of nest destructions, compared to 2012 when there had been 10 incidents of nests being destroyed. Although this figure of 18 is an improvement on that for 2012, it is still above the previous 4 year average of 14 incidents.

WILD BIRD RELATED PROSECUTIONS

In 2013 there were 32 individual prosecutions involving wild birds. Only 6 of those individuals were game keepers, and one of those was found not guilty. Therefore, of those prosecuted, only 16% were gamekeepers and only 6% of the 32 cases involved birds (buzzards) that had been killed. Only one of the cases concerned an upland keeper employed by an estate with grouse shooting interests, and that case did not involve the destruction of a bird of prey:

CONCLUSION

It is clear from its 2013 Birdcrime Report that the RSPB is continuing in its efforts to promote an anti-shooting agenda, especially against driven grouse shooting. It has less to do with aconcern about birds and more about ideology and a political agenda. Like reports of recent years, the 2013 Birdcrime Report is deliberately misleading, and many readers will invariably take at face value the claims and accusations that have been made. Many of these are serious, and made without the necessary evidence with which to substantiate them.

ENDS

The reason, perhaps, this article has mysteriously ‘disappeared’ from the CA’s website can probably be explained by the following…..

The Countryside Alliance used this article to lodge a complaint against the RSPB with the Charity Commission. The CA’s claim was based on this:

“The report [Birdcrime 2013] makes sweeping allegations against the shooting community, and grouse shooting in particular – allegations that are not consistent with the evidence provided [in Birdcrime 2013]”.

The Charity Commission was obliged to investigate the CA’s complaint that the RSPB had ‘mis-used’ data and had made ‘un-founded allegations’ and they have now issued their verdict – they have rejected every single complaint made by the Countryside Alliance against the RSPB.

Strangely, although the Charity Commission’s response letter was sent to the CA on 7th January 2015, the findings have not appeared on the CA’s website. Can’t think why. Anyway, here’s a copy for those who want to read it – it’s really rather good:

Charity Commission response to Countryside Alliance complaint re RSPB Jan 2015

Not to be deterred by making yet another ‘embarrassing blunder‘, this week the Countryside Alliance wrote a response to the sentencing of goshawk-bludgeoning gamekeeper George Mutch, sent to jail for four months for his raptor-killing crimes. The CA’s response starts off well, condemning Mutch’s actions, but then it all goes badly wrong. According to the CA, it’s the RSPB’s ‘wider policy’ that is driving the continued illegal persecution of raptors!

You couldn’t make this stuff up. Why is it so hard for the game-shooting industry to take responsibility for their actions instead of continually trying (and failing) to discredit the RSPB? Is it because they have no intention whatsoever of addressing the widespread criminality within their ranks and so they churn out all this anti-RSPB rhetoric as a distraction technique? Nothing to do with the RSPB being so effective at exposing and documenting the game-shooting industry’s crimes, of course.

Expect more ludicrous attacks on the RSPB over the coming weeks and months….a predictable response from an industry unable, or unwilling, to self-regulate and undoubtedly feeling the pressure of scrutiny and demand for change from an increasingly well-informed public.

The link to the CA’s latest absurd accusation can be found here, but just in case it also mysteriously ‘disappears’, here’s the full text. Enjoy!

Countryside Alliance website

16th January 2015

‘Shooting, livelihoods and raptors’

The illegal killing of birds of prey is about the most selfish crime it is possible to commit because even if there are short term benefits for the preservation of game (and those benefits are as likely to be perceived as real) they will always be outweighed by the long term damage to the shooting industry as a whole.

That is why the Alliance has no hesitation in condemning an Aberdeenshire gamekeeper who was sentenced to four months in prison earlier this week for four offences including the killing of a goshawk.

Raptors as a whole may be the biggest success story in British birds with numbers having increased hugely as a result of legal protection and reintroduction, but some species remain rare and killing them for the sake of providing more birds to shoot is never going to be anything but a political and PR disaster.

The RSPB collected the evidence which convicted that gamekeeper and was understandably pleased with the outcome of the case. Whilst its actions in relation to individual cases like this are entirely justified the Society must, however, consider whether its wider policy is actually helping to perpetuate, rather than reduce, illegal persecution.

This might sound a strange statement, but it is worth considering the RSPB’s own history and how other wildlife conflicts have been resolved. The RSPB was founded by a group of women appalled by the trade in exotic feathers for ladies’ hats. Its first campaign was not aimed at prosecuting the people killing birds, but at removing the causes of persecution, which in that case was the high value of feathers. By reducing demand for rare birds it removed the economic imperative for persecution.

One argument might be to simply ban shooting and with it one of the main reasons someone might have for killing a raptor. However, that policy would create far greater conflict and remove the many positive environmental, economic and social benefits of shooting which far outweigh the negatives of any associated raptor killing.

Another, we would argue far more logical, approach would be to consider the causes of any illegal raptor killing and how the drivers for that activity could be removed. In two areas in particular the RSPB seems unwilling to consider proposals which tackle the causes of persecution, as well as persecution itself.

Firstly by refusing to endorse proposals for hen harrier ‘brood management’ which would give assurances to upland keepers that colonies of hen harriers could not make their moors unviable and their jobs redundant. And secondly by opposing absolutely any management, even non-lethal, of the burgeoning buzzard population even if they are having a significant economic impact on game shooting.

We are not suggesting that these management practices must take place, but surely an agreement that they could be used where absolutely necessary to protect livelihoods would make it less likely that people would make the wrong decision about illegal killing?

END

“The eradication of mountain hares in eastern & southern Scotland is disgraceful”

Roy Dennis with AlmaFollowing last week’s Out of Doors programme on BBC Radio Scotland, which included an unchallenged interview with Dr Adam Smith of the GWCT who was trying very hard to justify mountain hare culls on grouse moors – see here [comment #8], we were pleased to hear the subject raised again on this week’s show, this time with someone with an opposing view.

That someone was conservationist Roy Dennis, probably best known for his involvement in several raptor reintroduction and satellite-tracking projects (visit his two websites here and here).

It’s a good, well-rounded interview. Whilst he recognises that there may, in some instances, be a requirement for local culling (to protect young trees), he doesn’t buy into the argument that the widespread mass culling of hares is beneficial for controlling disease in red grouse and he describes the eradication of mountain hares in eastern and southern Scotland [on grouse moors] as “disgraceful”.

He talks about the sustainable hare population on one Highland sporting estate where he has been providing ecological advice for a number of years (proabably Coignafearn Estate – one of the few that doesn’t kill hares –  see here) and welcomes SNH’s call for land managers to exercise ‘voluntary restraint’, although he thinks SNH struggled to get that through against opposition from landowners and GWCT. Roy’s own recommendation to SNH and the Government had been for a voluntary two-year moratorium on all mountain hare culling, allowing time for an assessment of the species’ conservation status and the impact of long-term, widespread culls.

Roy doesn’t agree with the calls for a ban on the shooting of mountain hares. Others disagree and a petition has been launched, calling for exactly that. See here.

Roy’s interview can be heard here for another month. [Starts at 16:04]

The photograph shows Roy with young golden eagle ‘Alma’, hatched on the Glenfeshie Estate in 2007 and satellite-tracked by Roy. She was found dead on the Millden Estate two years later. She’d been poisoned.

Useful guide to aid harrier identification (author unknown)

HH ID guide

UPDATE: Have just been told this is the creative genius of @YOLObirder

“Horrible” raptors are “becoming more aggressive”, says idiot

Yesterday, the Irish radio station ‘Newstalk’ broadcast a discussion on the theme ‘Are the birds going the way of the dinosaur?’

The presenter, Pat Kenny, was interviewing Professor Luke O’Neill, a prominent biochemist from Trinity College, Dublin. This leading academic was introduced as someone who has been studying the depletion of bird populations. According to Professor O’Neill, worldwide bird declines are attributable to “horrible” raptors that “are going up in numbers” and are “becoming more aggressive“. He also said a lot of other really stupid and inaccurate things.

You can listen to the broadcast here.

Is it any wonder that raptors continue to be persecuted when idiots like this are given air-time? His comments have probably set back raptor conservation in Ireland by years.

We were intrigued about O’Neill’s credentials in the field of raptor ecology and biology so we checked out the Professor’s webpage on his university’s website. We couldn’t find any evidence of his academic involvement in bird population studies, or any other ecological expertise for that matter. Have a look at his research publications here.

In response to the Professor’s unsubstantiated and moronic vilification of raptors, Dr Allan Mee, a leading raptor ecologist working with the Golden Eagle Trust in Ireland (specifically, managing the White-tailed Eagle Reintroduction Project) has today written to Professor O’Neill (email reproduced here with Dr Mee’s permission) –

Dear Prof O’Neill,

I was astonished at many of your statements made yesterday during your piece on the Pat Kenny show. I’ve made my feelings known to Newstalk and asked then for a right to reply. I’m not saying everything you said was factually incorrect but much was. Even disregarding the jocular tone of the programme the scene was set by focussing on raptors…..“the raptors, which are the horrible birds of prey, they’re going up in numbers some of those and one reason for the decline is they’re getting more aggressive” (no idea of source for this). This is set out as the centrepiece of your argument for the causes of declines in birds (songbirds, all birds?) and sets the tone for the rest of the piece and the general implications that raptors are the prime cause of bird declines.

Please by all means show me a scientific paper which shows this? No I don’t think you will find one.

Please show me a paper which attributes population declines and/or extinction to raptors? I don’t think you will find any evidence of this either apart from possibly the impacts of hen harriers on grouse on grouse moors in the UK where raptors are persecuted (shot, poisoned, trapped) because they conflict with the grouse moor owners desire to artificially maximise grouse numbers and thus profit. Look at all the evidence for declines in birds worldwide (see for example the data published by BirdLife International referenced below) or even closer to home where all our farmland birds and breeding waders have declined to the brink of extinction in many cases. No you won’t find any discussion of raptors as a causal factor there either because there are NO data to support this, rather the overwhelming evidence of declines due to farmland modernisation, loss of hedgerows, ryegrass monocultures replacing traditional meadows etc. Moreover it’s a long held tenet of ecology that predator populations respond to and are maintained by changes in prey populations, NOT the other way round.

Even your claim that climate change only changes the distribution of birds (they just move elsewhere) is wide of the mark. Birds can and do of course “respond” by changing their distribution/extending their ranges as has recently happened with Little Egrets in Ireland (if the raptors don’t get them first). But in many cases birds can’t just go somewhere else. They may be non-migratory or the habitat in “somewhere else” is already saturated with populations of that species. Or they literally have nowhere to go such as arctic relict species such as Ptarmigan on Scottish montane plateaux. The prognosis for such species isn’t good as climate warms up the montane environment and habitat changes so that the montane zoo moves further up the mountain until there is nowhere else to go. For many endemic species confined to a single island site these changes are likely to mean extinction.

You mention Red Kites increasing. Yes these have recently been reintroduced back to Ireland after being lost to human destruction 200-300 years ago. Their numbers are approx 30-50 pairs largely confined to Wicklow. They eat very few birds being largely specialist on rodents (rats), crows (young from nests), young rabbits and even earthworms. Even if they were to feed only on small birds this wouldn’t explain a decline in songbird numbers given that the numbers don’t stack up: 30-50 pairs or some 100-120 individuals compared to some hundreds of thousands of “small birds”, even if these are declining. Don’t take my word for it. Go to Avoca in Wicklow in winter to witness the stunning spectacle of many of the Wicklow kites roosting together just outside the town in winter. No you won’t find any sitting on garden bird feeders waiting for an easy meal and you’ll probably find lots of small birds feeding away happily.

Funnily enough, just to reinforce the point that raptors and healthy populations of small birds (their prey) do coexist, we once had at least 6 species of raptor in Ireland that became extinct in the last 300 years due to human persecution. Along with all that diverse and much larger raptor population there existed a diverse assemblage of bird species and much greater “small bird” populations in historic times when Ireland was still relatively pristine, lots of native woodland, intact bogs, stunningly rich marshes, healthy unpolluted rivers and lakes, beautiful extensive upland blanket bog and moorland etc. Oddly enough small birds did survive and thrive in the presence of all those raptors!

Over the past 10+ years we have been working hard to spread awareness among the public regarding the vital role birds of prey have in our ecosystem in the face to human persecution such as shooting and poisoning. There are plenty of folk out there who take what they hear on radio as “fact” especially when delivered by a Prof and backed up by a well-known presenter. It is a shame this lack of understanding still abounds even in academic circles and has the potential to damage years of conservation work by reinforcing long-held but misguided beliefs.

Over the past 25 years I have worked on species from golden eagles in Scotland, California Condors in the US and currently White-tailed Sea Eagles in Ireland (as well as being chairman of the Irish Raptor Study Group……at our annual conference in Dublin on 31 Jan we have several talks including one on raptor persecution entitled Natural  Injustice – the failure of wildlife crime enforcement in Scotland) where the common theme has been the destructive effects of human misconceptions regarding raptors and their role in ecosystems. It seems like not much has changed.

Allan

Complaints to Newstalk can be emailed to the Station Editor Garrett Harte: garrett@newstalk.com

Complaints to Professor O’Neill can be emailed to: laoneill@tcd.ie

UPDATE: Complaints from other organisations & individuals have already been made – see here.

Another UPDATE: Commentary on cause of bird population declines, and the valuable role of raptors in the environment, provided by real ecology experts from Trinity College, Dublin, not a pretend one – see here.

Gamekeepers “the doctors & nurses of the countryside”

Ah, Alex Hogg, the SGA Chairman – he’s the gift that just keeps giving.

He and his son Kyle featured in an ITV Border Life programme that aired on Monday and Alex gave us another one of his classic quotes:

“We kill animals because probably we’re the doctors and nurses of the countryside. Animals don’t have an old folks home to go to; when their teeth fall out they’ll starve to death so we’ll probably shoot that animal before that happens“.

What a deluded analogy. Doctors and nurses heal the sick; gamekeepers kill most species that might threaten the number of gamebirds available, er, to be killed. Where’s the similarity between these two professions?!

He also says he’s proud that things haven’t changed in 150 years of gamekeeping: “It’s part of our natural heritage, almost“.

What he meant of course was 150 years of gamekeeping has had a devastating impact on our natural heritage, wiping out several species (some of which have since been reintroduced by conservation organisations) and reducing others to a fraction of their former range and abundance.

If you want a laugh, you can watch the programme here (look for programme aired Jan 12th).

Who owns Kildrummy Estate?

Following yesterday’s news that Kildrummy Estate gamekeeper George Mutch has been jailed for four months for his raptor-killing criminal activities, a common question we’ve heard is, ‘Will there now be a vicarious liability prosecution?’

We think that there is the potential for a prosecution, although obviously we’re not privy to any evidence that the Crown might have available when they make a decision whether to proceed or not. We’ll just have to be patient and see what happens.

Let’s assume the Crown does decide that there is sufficient evidence to proceed, and that it would be in the public interest to prosecute, then the question becomes, ‘Who would be charged?’

That will depend on who was in the chain of command above Mutch and what managerial responsibilities they had at the time he committed his crimes (see here for our interpretation of how vicarious liability works). For example, if there was a Head Gamekeeper then perhaps he/she might be the one charged. If there was an Estate Factor then perhaps he/she might be the one charged. Perhaps there wasn’t anyone in a hierarchical managerial role between Mutch and the landowner, in which case, the landowner may be the one charged. But in this case, that might be a bit difficult.

Why? Have a read of Andy Wightman’s brilliant blog here and you’ll understand!