Category: News

George Mutch sentenced to four months in prison

Scottish gamekeeper George Mutch, convicted in December for trapping a goshawk and then battering it to death (and a few other things – see here) on the Kildrummy Estate in Aberdeenshire, has been sentenced to four months in prison for his crimes.

He was led away from the court in handcuffs and is currently en-route to a prison cell.

What an unbelievably brilliant outcome – we never thought we’d see the day. Mutch is the first gamekeeper ever to be jailed in the UK for killing raptors.

Huge congratulations to the RSPB Investigations Team, SSPCA, Police Scotland and the Crown Office, and kudos (and thanks) to Sheriff Noel McPartlin for handing out this sentence. An acknowledgement also to former Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse, who pushed hard for the admissibility of video evidence. Had he not done so, this case would probably not have made it to court.

For anyone who missed it when he was convicted in December, here is the video nasty showing gamekeeper Mutch carrying out his crimes on the Kildrummy Estate in Aberdeenshire.

We understand there’s the potential for a vicarious liability prosecution in this case. We’ll have to wait and see whether COPFS deems there’s enough evidence to proceed. Although that may prove difficult – have a read of Andy Wightman’s blog about who owns Kildrummy Estate, here.

Media coverage:

A bizarre statement from the SGA here. Isn’t it great to see the representative organisation strongly condemning his crimes, er…

BBC news here, including statements from the Sheriff, RSPB Scotland, COPFS, SGA and SLE.

RSPB Scotland statement here

Press & Journal here

Herald here. This is an interesting one, with quotes from defence agent David McKie about Mutch’s employment status and the status of his firearms certificates.

Telegraph here, with claims that Mutch had been sent a ‘threatening letter’ following his conviction in December. The police are investigating.

Daily Mail here, with a classic quote from Superintendent George MacDonald (Police Scotland) suggesting it’s just a “small minority” of gamekeepers who are at it. What he meant, of course, is that it’s just a small minority that are actually caught.

Courier here, which is pretty much a carbon copy of the Mail’s piece.

COPFS statement here

Sentencing today for gamekeeper George Mutch, convicted raptor killer

Convicted gamekeeper George Mutch will be sentenced today at Aberdeen Sheriff Court.

Mutch, a 48-year old (now former) member of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association who worked on Kildrummy Estate, Aberdeenshire, was found guilty of four wildlife crimes in December, including the illegal killing of a goshawk which he trapped and then clubbed to death, and the trapping and taking of a further goshawk and a buzzard (see here).

All eyes on Sheriff McPartlin, who said in December that a custodial sentence was being considered….

Status of hen harriers in Scotland

The plight of the English hen harrier population has been well-documented, spiralling to near breeding extinction in recent years thanks to the criminals within the grouse-shooting industry who continue to show a zero tolerance policy for this species when it tries to nest on their grossly mis-managed grouse moors.

But what of the Scottish population? There hasn’t been as much focus on this, and some of what has been written has been immensely misleading.

One common misconception is that ‘Scottish hen harriers are doing ok, because there are hundreds of them as opposed to the single-figure breeding attempts in England, right?’ This false declaration is usually trotted out by representatives of the grouse-shooting industry, presumably in an attempt to cover up what is actually happening on many Scottish grouse moors.

Take the GWCT for example. They have a web page, written in 2014, called The Status of Hen Harriers in Scotland (see here). They paint a rosy picture and say that in 2004, hen harriers were nationally in favourable conservation status in Scotland, based on the results of the 2004 national hen harrier survey. The 2004 survey did indeed show an increase in the overall hen harrier breeding population (since the previous national survey in 1998), although this national increase masked the finer details of local scale: those increases were restricted solely to areas in the west and far north (i.e. areas without driven grouse moors) whereas breeders in the east and south (i.e. areas of intensively-managed grouse moors) had suffered significant declines. Sound familiar? It should – it’s exactly the same scenario for the golden eagle (e.g. see here).

Not only did the GWCT article fail to acknowledge the 2004 regional declines associated with driven grouse moors, but it also glossed over the results of the more recent 2010 national survey. Why? Well, perhaps because the 2010 national survey showed an overall decline of 20% in the Scottish hen harrier breeding population, and the species was only considered to be in favourable conservation status in five of 20 Scottish regions. Unsurprisingly, none of those five regions are in areas managed for driven grouse shooting.

For those of you who prefer to source your information from a more reliable authority, you’d do well to read this article, written by one of Scotland’s foremost hen harrier experts.

For an even more detailed view, the standard work to consult is the 2011 Hen Harrier Conservation Framework, written by leading scientists in the field. This report has since been updated although we’re still waiting for SNH to publish it, more than a year since it was submitted.

This report sets out very clearly what the main issue is: Illegal persecution is the biggest single factor affecting hen harriers and it is having a dramatic impact on the population, not only in northern England but also in Scotland:

  • The potential national hen harrier population in Scotland is estimated (conservatively) to be within the range 1467-1790 pairs.
  • The current national hen harrier population in Scotland as recorded during the most recent (2010) national survey is 505 pairs, more than a 20% decline from the numbers recorded during the 2004 national survey.
  • In Scotland, the hen harrier has a favourable conservation status in only five of 20 regions.
  • Two main constraints were identified: illegal persecution, and in one region, prey shortages.
  • The species is particularly unsuccessful in the Central Highlands, Cairngorm Massif, Northeast Glens, Western Southern Uplands and the Border Hills. There is strong evidence in these grouse moor regions that illegal persecution is causing the failure of a majority of breeding attempts.

The next national hen harrier survey will take place in 2016. We look forward to seeing the results.

In October 2014, a new five-year project was launched, ‘aiming to achieve a secure and sustainable future’ for hen harriers in northern England and parts of Scotland (we blogged about it here). The project website has just been launched (see here) – just an outline at the moment but more detail will be added as the work gets underway. Take a look at the map they’ve published showing the status of breeding hen harriers in seven Special Protection Areas (SPAs) in Scotland and northern England. These SPAs were designated specifically for hen harriers. Not one of them is functioning as it should.

2014 saw the launch of the first Hen Harrier Day, initiated by the campaign group Birders Against Wildlife Crime, which included a large social media campaign and a number of public demonstrations in England. Unfortunately, Scotland missed a trick by not holding its own demonstration, although a number of us did travel to demos in Northumberland and Derbyshire to show solidarity and support. This was appropriate given that ‘English’ hen harriers regularly visit Scotland, and ‘Scottish’ hen harriers regularly visit England. They also visit Northern Ireland, the Irish Republic, the Isle of Man and Wales, and vice versa. We shouldn’t view the hen harrier issue as just an English problem, because it isn’t; it’s a problem throughout these isles and we need to stand united against it.

Hen Harrier Day will take place again this year (Sunday 9th August) and this time there will be Scotland-based demonstrations. We’re not directly involved in the organisation of these events but we’ll post information here as plans develop.

HH Day orig2

New petition puts more pressure on SNH to protect mountain hares

There’s been a lot of publicity recently, and quite rightly, about the unregulated mass slaughter of mountain hares on Scottish grouse moors (e.g. see here, here, here and here).

However, this issue isn’t new.

Nine years ago (yes, nine), a complaint was made to the EU that Scotland was in breach of European law (Habitats Directive) because SNH was allowing the unrestricted killing of mountain hares on grouse moors without knowing whether those culls were affecting the species’ conservation status. The complaint was made by Neil Macdonald, a former wildlife officer with Tayside Police. His complaint was publicised by environmental journalist Rob Edwards, here.

According to Edwards’ report, SNH accepted that there could be a problem. SNH’s scientific director Colin Galbraith was quoted as follows:

“The culling of mountain hares on some Highland estates is an issue that SNH is aware of and takes very seriously“.

So what happened to that EU complaint? Well, according to Dr Adam Watson (we blogged about his tirade against SNH’s failure to protect mountain hares here) this is what happened:

‘EU staff did follow this up, by requesting SNH for its views and advice. I have been told that SNH senior staff responded to the EU by asserting that they would have informed the EU if they had been aware of such severe problems. Thus the EU then ended their pursuit of Macdonald’s complaint‘ [quoted from page 132 of Watson’s book Mammals in north-east Highlands (2013)].

So here we are, nine years on, and what’s SNH doing? Calling on grouse moor managers to practice ‘voluntary restraint’ on hare culling – in our opinion, a pointless effort (see here). Oh, and conducting more ‘trials’ to work out how to count mountain hares. Seriously, we can do full face transplants, we can communicate immediately with millions of people around the globe with a single click, we can land a robot on the surface of a comet…..but we can’t figure out how to count hares on a few hill sides? Come on.

And as we predicted, SNH’s latest ‘trials’ are being used as an excuse by the Government to delay any immediate action to protect mountain hares. In December, Alison Johnstone MSP asked a Parliamentary question on what action the Scottish Government is taking to protect hares. This question was answered last week by Environment Minister Aileen McLeod (although to be fair to her, her response is probably just a regurgitation of what SNH has told her). Here’s what she said:

Question S4W-23615: Alison Johnstone, Lothian, Scottish Green Party, Date Lodged: 10/12/2014

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question S4W-18470 by Paul Wheelhouse on 4 December 2013, whether it will provide an update on the information regarding mountain hares.

Answered by Aileen McLeod (06/01/2015):

Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), the James Hutton Institute and the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, acting on the advice of several mountain hare experts, have started work on field trialling a range of methods of assessing mountain hare numbers, to develop a better monitoring strategy and to improve the quality of the information used to assess population status and the sustainability of hare management measures. This programme of work is due to be completed in 2017.

Until this study is complete, and because of recent concerns about the status of mountain hares, SNH has developed a joint position statement on the subject of hare culling following consultation with key stakeholders representing moorland managers, namely Scottish Land & Estates and the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust. The statement is evidence-based and argues that large scale culls of mountain hares to reduce tick loads, and thus to benefit grouse and other bird survival, are only effective when other tick-carrying animals are removed as well, or where they are absent. The intention is to work with estates to put in place effective but sustainable management of mountain hares. More information about the joint position statement can be found on the SNH website

http://snh.presscentre.com/News-Releases/SNH-GWCT-SL-E-position-on-large-scale-culls-of-mountain-hares-to-reduce-louping-ill-15f.aspx

In addition, a review of sustainable moorland management is currently being undertaken by a sub-group of experts from SNH’s Scientific Advisory Committee chaired by Professor Alan Werritty. This includes the management of mountain hares as one of a number of issues connected with sustainable moorland management practices. This review is due to be completed by March 2015.

Earlier in 2014, SNH was provided with additional hare count data, collected over many years in some cases. These quantitative data are potentially very useful, as previous evidence of local declines was largely based on anecdote. This information has been made available to the above SNH Scientific Advisory Committee sub-group as part of the review process.

END

If, like us, you don’t think SNH is doing anywhere near enough to protect this iconic species from the indiscriminate slaughter that continues across Scotland’s driven grouse moors, you might want to consider signing a petition which calls on SNH to confer immediate protected species status on the mountain hare and thus put an end to this barbaric, disgusting butchery. Please sign it HERE.

mountain hare cull angus glens large

Subsidy penalty for convicted vicarious liability landowner

Last month we blogged about the Scottish landowner who was the first to be convicted under the new vicarious liability legislation which came in to force on 1st January 2012.

Ninian Robert Hathorn Johnston Stewart of the Physgill & Glasserton Estates was found guilty of being vicariously liable for the actions of his gamekeeper, Peter Finley Bell, who had laid out a poisoned bait which killed a buzzard. Bell was also found to be in possession of three banned poisons (see here).

The landowner’s conviction was met with mixed feelings. Many of us were pleased to see a successful prosecution in what was a landmark case, but there was widespread disappointment in the derisory fine of just £675.

A number of blog commentators asked whether the landowner would also be hit by a Single Farm Payment penalty for cross compliance breaches. We weren’t able to answer that at the time, although we knew that the use of a banned poison to kill a protected wild bird would certainly merit a penalty.

Well, it turns out that Mr Johnston Stewart was indeed hit with a subsidy penalty. According to his defence agent (David McKie),

“He [Johnston Stewart] had already been penalised substantially via a high five-figure deduction to his single farm payment“.

We don’t know what that “high five-figure deduction” was (presumably somewhere between £10,000 – £99,999), nor do we know how it was calculated, nor what percentage it was of his annual subsidy payment. Nevertheless, it’s good to hear that a penalty was imposed so well done to SGRPID (Scottish Government, Rural Payments & Inspections Directorate) for being on the ball.

Wouldn’t it be good if this sort of detail was easily available in the public domain? We’d like to know how these public subsidies are being distributed (or revoked) and it surely has a deterrent value for other landowners who might just be persuaded to take a closer look at what their gamekeepers are up to. A section on this in the Scottish Government’s annual wildlife crime report wouldn’t go amiss….

The face of ‘modern landownership’ in Scotland

This is a belter. Surely inspired by the Gloria Gaynor classic, a Scottish estate owner has erected signs on his land telling the RSPB they’re ‘not welcome’.

Go on now go

Walk out the door

Just turn around now

‘Cause you’re not welcome anymore

John Mackenzie, who owns the massive Gairloch and Conon Estates, said he’d put up the signs because:

“It is years of frustration and anger boiling over. Landowners, farmers and gamekeepers have always been an easy target, blamed by the society [RSPB] for the poisoning and shooting of raptors“.

Er, wouldn’t that have something to do with the fact that the majority of those convicted for poisoning and shooting raptors are, erm, gamekeepers working on shooting estates?

He went on to say he was “irritated” to find out that the RSPB had been “driving around looking at things themselves“. How dare they!

Ironically, the Conon Estate is close to the area where 22 raptors were found dead last spring in what has been termed the Ross-shire Massacre – 16 of them confirmed illegally poisoned (still no information on the other six).

Poor old Laird MacKenzie. He knows he can’t stop the RSPB, or anyone else for that matter, accessing his land, but he thought he’d stick up his signs anyway. Bless.

We wonder how his actions fit in with the recently launched Landowners Charter? Prepared by Scottish Land & Estates and published last September, this charter ‘sets out a commitment to the principles and responsibilities of modern landownership in Scotland’. The ‘four pillars’ of this charter are for landowners to be open, inclusive, enabling and responsible.

Not rude, arrogant, intolerant and stupid, then?

Bring on the land reform.

Article in Daily Mail here

Article in Daily Telegraph here

Article on BBC news website here

Pointless call for ‘voluntary restraint’ on Scottish grouse moor mountain hare massacres

mountain hare cull Angus glensScottish Natural Heritage, in partnership with the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust and Scottish Land & Estates, has issued a press release (here) calling for ‘voluntary restraint’ on the large scale culling of mountain hares on Scottish grouse moors. Some of you may have read about it a few days ago on Mark Avery’s blog here.

In the original press release (which was amended one day later), it was stated:

“The bold step by SNH, SLE and GWCT should help ensure that future management is sustainable“.

What a steaming pile of tosh. This doesn’t come anywhere near being “a bold step”. A bold step would have been for SNH to exercise the precautionary principle and enforce an immediate and indefinite moratorium on the wide-scale, unregulated mass slaughter of mountain hares until the effect of such killing on the mountain hare population can be rigorously assessed.

The concept of calling for voluntary restraint from grouse moor managers is farcical. So many of them have refused even to adhere to 60-year-old conservation legislation (i.e. not to poison, trap or shoot protected raptors) so the chances of them volunteering restraint to not slaughter a partially-legitimate quarry species is pretty minimal.

Asking for voluntary restraint on hare-killing is also not a new approach. Last year SNH said: “We don’t support large, indiscriminate culls of mountain hares and advise moorland managers to talk to us if they are thinking of culling hares in large numbers” (see here).

And even way back in 2003, Scotland’s Moorland Forum published a document called Principles of Moorland Management. On page 27 it says the following:

“We do not recommend the indiscriminate culling of hares; apart from the direct impact on the hare population, there may also be the indirect effect of a reduction of the food supply for larger raptors, including eagles. In certain circumstances, however, culling may be considered necessary……but further advice should be sought from SNH before embarking on a cull programme“.

So how many grouse moor estates, do you think, contacted SNH for advice before embarking on a cull programme?

According to allegations made by leading upland ecologist Dr Adam Watson and based on decades of scientific fieldwork, not many. In his 2013 book, Mammals in north-east Highlands, Watson writes:

“I know of no grouse-moor estate within the range of the mountain hare that has not practiced or does not practice heavy killing of hares, with the exceptions of Edinglassie, Invermark, Glen Muick and Balmoral (but most of Balmoral is deer land rather than grouse moor). The only other heather-moorland areas that I know which are free from heavy killing are those owned by non-sporting agencies or by individuals primarily interested in wildlife conservation, such as the RSPB at Abernethy, SNH at Inshriach, the National Trust for Scotland at Mar Lodge, and Miss Walker of the Aberlour shortbread company, who owns Conval hills near Dufftown“.

He goes on to name various estates who, he alleges, “have been reducing the numbers of mountain hares greatly“, some dating back to the 1980s. His named estates include Altyre, Castle Grant, Lochindorb, Farr, Millden, Glenogil, Glen Dye, Dinnet, Invercauld, Tillypronie, Glen Buchat, Candacraig, Allargue, Delnadamph, Crown Estate, Fasque, Cabrach, Glenfiddich, Glenlochy, Gannochy, Fettercairn, Cawdor, Corrybrough, Moy, Glen Lyon.

Adam Watson Mammals in NE Highlands[Incidentally, this book is a goldmine of information about what goes on on the grouse moors of NE Scotland. Ignore the bizarre front cover and Watson’s somewhat erratic writing style – this book is crammed with details gleaned from decades of Watson’s scientific field work and is well worth its £9.99 price tag. There’s even an allegation that “In 2010, Millden Estate released red grouse from elsewhere, for shooting“. If that’s true it raises a number of issues, not least whether they had a licence to translocate red grouse].

Watson’s observations, and those of others, have led to a number of high-profile media reports about the mass slaughter of mountain hares on Scottish grouse moors (e.g. see here, here and here) and even Parliamentary questions (see here and here). Tellingly, MSP Alison Johnstone (Lothian, Scottish Green Party) has recently followed up on the answers provided last year and on 10th December 2014 she lodged a further question (due to be answered on 7th Jan 2015) requesting an update on how SNH intend to assess whether mountain hares are in a favourable conservation status. We already know how this question will be answered – the Environment Minister will simply recite the content of the latest SNH press release.

In addition to calling for ‘voluntary restraint’, the press release tells us that the three organisations will be ‘developing a reliable and cost-effective field method’ to form the basis of a long-term monitoring programme. Previous attempts at this have failed miserably, and some correspondence from earlier this year between Dr Watson [AW] and SNH about these ‘field methods’ is really quite illuminating: (thanks to the blog reader who sent us these)

AW letter to SNH 14 February 2014

SNH response to AW 7 March 2014

AWresponse to SNH 15 March 2014

In Dr Watson’s view (shared by many of us), these further ‘trials’ simply represent more procrastination from SNH but will be used by them (and probably by GWCT & SLE) to proclaim that “Everything’s ok, we’re sorting it”. That may fool some but the awful, bloody reality will probably not change.

A final point. We are fascinated to see that this ‘joint initiative’ is coming from not only SNH but also GWCT and SLE. The call for ‘voluntary restraint’ on the mass killing of mountain hares seems to be slightly at odds with activities carried out on Lochindorb Estate when it was owned by the GWCT’s former Scottish Committee Chairman, Alasdair Laing (e.g. see here). As for SLE, their view on the destruction of thousands of mountain hares on Scottish grouse moors can be read here.

To read our previous blogs on mountain hares, click here [and scroll down through the posts]

To view some shocking, sickening photographs of the mass killing of mountain hares on a grouse moor go here.

Come on, Aileen

Aileen McLeod MSPWe didn’t know what to expect from the newly-appointed Environment Minister when she took on her role a little over a month ago. Dr Aileen McLeod’s political experience had been largely focused on European policy work, although she was clearly highly educated and we knew she’d be well advised by the wildlife crime policy officers in Holyrood. Nevertheless, it would inevitably take time for her to achieve the level of insight and knowledge of her predecessor, Paul Wheelhouse MSP, who had the benefit of two years in office and was beginning to achieve considerable momentum against the raptor killers, until he was pushed out to another department in the Cabinet reshuffle in November.

Obviously, the jury is still out on Dr McLeod’s effectiveness and we need to give her a bit of time to get her bearings, although we fully expect her to adopt the Government’s stated intolerance of wildlife crime and to do everything she can to ensure that the raptor killers are brought to justice.

Two recent statements show that she has a thoughtful and measured approach, although we have cause to question a few of her comments.

First off, she has responded to the concerns of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment (RACCE) Committee, who wrote to her (see here) after taking evidence on wildlife crime from Police Scotland, COPFS and the former Environment Minister.

Here is her response: Environment Minister response to RACCE Committee Dec 2014

On the whole, her response is non-contentious and is pointing in the right direction, but she does say a couple of odd things. On the issue of the detection and prosecution of wildlife crime she says:

“Reported crime numbers also reflect not only public awareness of wildlife crime, but also confidence that there will be an appropriate response from the authorities. Police Scotland has worked hard to ensure that consistent structures and resources are in place throughout Scotland and we expect this to produce improved results in wildlife crime reporting“.

We haven’t seen any evidence of this, in fact the complete opposite. We would agree that Police Scotland has been consistent, but not in a good way; consistently poor responses to reports of wildlife crime (with a handful of exceptions) seems to have been the norm for a very long time.

On the subject of the absence of species potentially indicating criminal activity (i.e. the absence of certain raptor species from vast swathes of driven grouse moors) she says:

“We know that there may also be other non-criminal explanations for the absence of species. Nevertheless I agree that this would be useful work for the PAW Scotland Science sub-group to take forward“.

What other non-criminal explanations are there for the absence of certain raptor species from driven grouse moors? All the science (and there has been plenty of it, some dating back almost two decades) indicates a direct link to the illegal persecution of raptors on those moors. Sure, natural factors such as habitat, climate, prey availability, predation etc can and do affect the natural distribution of species, but we’re talking about species that have either ‘disappeared’ from their former natural ranges or their breeding attempts in parts of those ranges consistently fail. It’s no coincidence that these areas just happen to be managed as driven grouse moors.

On the subject of increasing the investigatory powers of the SSPCA she says:

“I am also aware of the need to carefully balance a number of factors such as resources, accountability and proportionality in coming to a decision on whether to extend further powers to the SSPCA as regards wildlife crime“.

‘Proportionality’ is an interesting word. It suggests that the measure of extending the SSPCA’s powers should be fair, reasonable and appropriate. Who would argue that extending the SSPCA’s powers would be a dis-proportionate response to the rising level of wildlife crime in Scotland and Police Scotland’s inability to cope? Well we already know the answer to that – see here and here. The question is, will the Environment Minister consider it a disproportionate measure? We’ll find out soon enough, although if the last sentence of her letter to the RACCE Committee is anything to go by, she’ll do the right thing:

“Tackling wildlife crime is a key priority for the Scottish Government and one that I am keen to take forward robustly in my new role“.

Other statements in her response letter were very encouraging, and we particularly welcome her intention to consider including the locations of illegally placed poison baits and traps on the annual PAW raptor persecution maps. That’s something that we (and others) have been asking for for a long time (e.g. see here).

We were also pleased to see a (diplomatic) dig about Police Scotland’s ridiculous press statement on the cause of the Ross-shire Massacre (here is some background on their idiotic statement, in case you missed it). Dr McLeod says:

“Police Scotland’s press release on 24 October was designed to bring about a reduction in speculation that was widespread across social media on this high profile case. I am confident that lessons will have been learned on the need to be very careful with wording of such communications“.

She went a bit further in a recent statement published in the Scottish Farmer (here), where she announced NFU Scotland as a new member of PAW. In that statement she reiterated that the Ross-shire Massacre was the result of criminal activity. In other words, it wasn’t the result of an accidental poisoning.

 So, all in all a good start from her, with just a couple of questionable statements. Come on, Aileen, let’s see what you can deliver in 2015…

Barn owl shot dead

A barn owl has been shot dead in Leicester over the Xmas period.

It was found in an out building with bloodied chest feathers. A veterinary x-ray revealed three shot gun pellets embedded in its torso.

Full details on Paul Riddle’s blog here.

Thanks to @emilyjoachim for the info.