The Scotsman has published my opinion piece today about the potential impact of the new licensing scheme for grouse shooting in Scotland.
You can read it on The Scotsman website (here) and it’s reproduced below:
I call them ‘The Untouchables’. Those within the grouse-shooting industry who have been getting away with illegally killing golden eagles, and other raptor species such as hen harriers, buzzards and red kites, for decades.
They don’t fear prosecution because there are few people around those remote, privately owned glens to witness the ruthless and systematic poisoning, trapping and shooting of these iconic birds. If the police do come looking, more often than not they’re met with an Omertá-esque wall of silence from those who, with an archaic Victorian mindset, still perceive birds of prey to be a threat to their lucrative red grouse shooting interests.
For a successful prosecution, Police Scotland and the Crown Office must be able to demonstrate “beyond reasonable doubt” that a named individual committed the crime. As an example of how difficult this is, in 2010 a jar full of golden eagle leg rings was found on a mantelpiece during a police raid of a gamekeeper’s house in the Highlands. Each of those unique leg ring numbers could be traced back to an individual eagle.
The gamekeeper couldn’t account for how he came to be in possession of those rings, but the police couldn’t prove that he had killed those eagles and cut off their legs to remove the rings as trophies.
Despite the remains of two red kites, six illegal traps, an illegally trapped hen harrier and poisoned bait also being found on the estate, the gamekeeper was fined a mere £1,500 for being in possession of one dead red kite, that was found mutilated in the back of his estate vehicle.
In another case in 2010, three golden eagles were found poisoned on a grouse-shooting estate in the Highlands over just a few weeks. Even though the police found an enormous cache of the lethal poison – carbofuran – locked in a shed to which the head gamekeeper held a key, they couldn’t demonstrate that he was the person who had laid the poisoned baits that had killed the eagles. This meant he was fined £3,300 for the possession of the banned poison, but wasn’t prosecuted for killing the eagles.
In recent years, researchers have been fitting small satellite tags to young golden eagles which allows us to track their movements across Scotland, minute by minute. Analysis has shown that between 2004 and 2016, almost one third of tagged eagles (41 of 131 birds) ‘disappeared’ in suspicious circumstances, mostly on or next to grouse moors.
Satellite-tagged golden eagle prior to fledging. This eagle was tagged in 2014, ‘disappeared’ on a Strathbraan grouse moor in 2016 and it’s satellite tag was found wrapped in heavy lead sheeting in the River Braan in 2020. Photo by Duncan Orr-Ewing
The lengths the criminals will go to avoid detection were exposed in 2020 when a walker found a satellite tag that had been cut off an eagle, wrapped in heavy lead sheeting – presumably to block the signal – and dumped in the River Braan. The tag’s unique identification number told us it belonged to a young eagle tagged in the Trossachs in 2014. This eagle had disappeared without trace from a Perthshire grouse moor in 2016, in an area where eight other tagged eagles had vanished in similar suspicious circumstances. Nobody has been prosecuted.
The remains of the satellite tag that had been cut off the eagle, wrapped in lead sheeting and dumped in a river. Photo by Ian Thomson, RSPB Scotland
The most recent disappearance of a tagged eagle happened just before Christmas 2023, close to the boundary of a grouse moor in the Moorfoot Hills. ‘Merrick’ was translocated to the area in 2022 as part of the South of Scotland Golden Eagle Project. Her tag data told us she was asleep in a tree immediately before she disappeared. Police found her blood and a few feathers at the scene and concluded she’d been shot. Who shoots a sleeping eagle? Again, no one has been prosecuted.
This situation has persisted for decades because although golden eagles have been afforded legal protection for the last 70 years, to date there hasn’t been a single successful prosecution for killing one. The chances of getting caught and prosecuted have been so low that the risk of committing the crime has been worth taking, over and over again. Until now.
Earlier this year, the Scottish Parliament passed new legislation, the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, which introduces a licensing scheme for grouse shooting. For the first time in 170 years, red grouse shooting can now only take place on estates that have been granted a licence to shoot.
How will this stop the slaughtering of golden eagles and other birds of prey on Scotland’s grouse moors? Well, the licence can be revoked for up to five years if there is evidence of wildlife crime on the estate. Significantly, this will be based on the civil burden of proof which has a lower evidential threshold than the criminal burden of proof.
This means that instead of the police having to prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that a named individual was responsible, they now have to prove that it’s based only on the ‘balance of probability’. This is a real game-changer because instead of being perpetually ‘untouchable’, now there are real, tangible consequences for the grouse shooting industry if these crimes continue. Estates will no longer be able to rely on the implausible protestation that ‘a big boy did it and ran away’.
As with any legislation, it will only be effective if it is strongly enforced. The jury’s out on that and we’ll be keeping a close eye on performance, but as the licensing scheme is based on a policy of mistrust, the Scottish Government has sent an unequivocal message to the grouse shooting industry. We all know what’s been going on and the public will no longer tolerate it.
Following the Scottish Parliament’s approval of the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, which introduces a licensing scheme for the shooting of red grouse in Scotland in another attempt to bring an end to the ongoing illegal killing of birds of prey on many Scottish grouse moors, the landowners’ lobby group, Scottish Land & Estates (SLE) hosted a Moorland Conference on 11 June 2024 and invited Minister Jim Fairlie to speak.
I was interested in what the Minister would say so I asked the Scottish Government for a copy of his notes/speech.
There was a caveat at the end of the letter from the Scottish Government that went like this:
“I would like to advise you that the actual speech by Minister Jim Fairlie, when he addressed the Moorland Conference on 11 June 2024, is likely to differ to the copy of the speech and/or prompt notes provided to him“.
I don’t think there’s anything particularly surprising in the copy of the speech that’s been provided – there’s nothing here that Fairlie didn’t say during his time on the parliamentary committee that scrutinised the Bill at stages one and two, nor during his time as Minister as he steered it through the Stage 3 debate before the Parliament voted to approve the Bill.
Nevertheless, it’s always a good idea to keep track of what Ministers are saying at private meetings, not least to be able to hold them to account if they renege on their previous commitments but also to be able to side-step any hyped-up claims of what’s been said by anyone wishing to present a distorted narrative.
For example, I read a review of the conference that focused heavily on Fairlie’s favourable comments about the grouse shooting industry but was predictably light on his comments linking illegal raptor persecution to grouse shooting.
Fairlie has always been clear about that undeniable link, especially during his time on the Rural Affairs Committee when it was scrutinising the Bill (here) so it’s good to see him reiterate that again to the grouse shooting industry, even though it was sandwiched between some top level fawning.
Stobo Hope is a valuable moorland habitat near Peebles in the Scottish Borders, part of a landscape designated as a National Scenic Area. It’s an important site for a number of species, not least Black Grouse and Golden Eagles.
Part of the site was formerly a grouse moor but that stopped quite a while ago and the heather ‘strips’ you can see in the distance in this photo is where the heather has been cut (as opposed to muirburn) for grazing management.
However, approximately ten square kilometres of this land has been bought by a company and approximately seven square kilometres is being planted with non-native Sitka Spruce, apparently in support of tackling climate change (but see here for a cautionary tale on tree-planting schemes in other areas of Scotland published on the always-interesting ParkWatchScotland blog).
This massive conifer plantation at Stobo has apparently been given the go-ahead by the Scottish Government (via its agency Scottish Forestry) and has awarded a grant in excess of £2 million (tax payers’ money) to support the development.
Local campaigners (Stobo Residents Action Group Ltd) claim that Scottish Forestry failed to follow the required legal protocols when assessing this development because they determined that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) wasn’t required. The campaigners argue that NatureScot advised that an EIA was necessary because the conifer plantation was likely to have ‘significant and adverse affects’ but it appears that Scottish Forestry has ignored this advice, and similar advice from others.
In April this year the Stobo Residents Action Group lodged a request at court to seek judicial review of Scottish Forestry’s decision to allow the development without an EIA. The Scottish court has just given the campaigners approval to proceed (which means the court agrees that the group has an arguable case) and the group is now preparing for the case to be heard, probably in the autumn.
Meanwhile, back on site, preparation of the ground for the Sitka plantation is well underway with ploughing of the carbon-rich soil, the construction of large roads and the widespread application of a herbicide that campaigners say ‘has wiped out important plant communities including heather, blaeberry and many species of wildflowers, grasses, ferns, lichens and mosses. This will also have had a devastating effect on faunal populations, destroying the habitat, cover and food supply for mammals, birds, reptiles and invertebrates including the red-listed black grouse‘.
Here are some photos of the recent work on site (all photos by Stobo Residents Action Group):
Herbicide application
Herbicide application
New road built in National Scenic Area
Ploughing on carbon-rich peatland for planting of non-native Sitka Spruce
As many of you will know, judicial reviews cost money and these local residents are now crowdfunding to try and raise the estimated £35,000 needed to take the case to court. As always with these things, there’s no guarantee of success but the fact the court has now approved the application for judicial review is encouraging and gives these campaigners a fighting chance.
The campaigners have raised £15,500 so far of their £35,000 target. If you’d like to support them, please visit their crowdfunder page here.
In fact I’d recommend you visit it anyway and click on the ‘updates’ tab to read in more detail what they’re fighting against. If you’re able to contribute a few quid I know they’d really appreciate your help. Thank you.
UPDATE 11 September 2024: Legal success for Stobo Residents Action Group fighting against commercial forestry project (here)
Further to last week’s blog about the commencement legislation being published for the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 (see here), NatureScot has now published its draft Code of Practice for Grouse Moor Management, which provides the legal framework for how grouse moors have to be managed.
Grouse-shooting butt. Photo by Ruth Tingay
The final version of the Grouse Moor Code of Practice is set to be published on 12th July 2024 and licence applications will open online on 15th July 2024, allowing grouse moor managers time to apply and have their licences in place for the start of the grouse-shooting season on the Inglorious 12th August.
A few of us have been invited to comment on the draft version of the Code, although this appears to be NatureScot just paying lip-service to a consultation, given the closing date for comments is 10th July and the final version is expected to be published two days later on the 12th July. Nevertheless, I have submitted some comments as follows:
There doesn’t seem to be a requirement for grouse moor licence holders to produce evidence of a formal veterinary prescription for the use of medicated grit. This is both surprising and disappointing given that NatureScot told campaigners earlier this year that the use of medicated grit will be subject to greater regulation under the new Code of Practice (see here). Rest assured that campaigners from the League Against Cruel Sports (Scotland) and Wild Justice are planning to monitor the use (and mis-use) of medicated grit on grouse moors using a newly-developed lab technique they recently co-funded, and another technique currently undergoing testing. Watch this space.
There doesn’t seem to be a requirement for licence holders to provide ‘returns’ (data) on the type and number of species that are (lawfully) killed as part of routine grouse moor management. There is a requirement for ‘bag returns’ on the number of red grouse shot, which is definitely an improvement, but what about the thousands (estimates of up to a quarter of a million) of other native animals that are trapped, shot and killed (e.g. corvids, stoats, weasels) each year just to enable an artificially high population of red grouse to be shot? How can NatureScot and the Scottish Government possibly evaluate the sustainability of grouse moor management if they don’t have access to these figures?
There doesn’t seem to be a requirement for the use of non-lead ammunition. Why is that? How can grouse shooting be considered sustainable when thousands of tonnes of toxic poison are being fired and then left to accumulate in the environment, contaminating soils, plants and waterbodies, not to mention poisoning wildlife?
It’s possible that some of the above are addressed in the associated ‘Best Practice Guidelines’ being drafted to support the Code of Practice, but currently the latest edition of the Best Practice Guidelines hasn’t yet been published and isn’t expected to be until ‘summer 2024’, whenever that is. How is it possible to provide an opinion on something that isn’t available for scrutiny?
Apart from these specific detailed concerns, the overall content of the Code seems reasonable and the general information that NatureScot has published so far about the Code of Practice and how it will work seems to be fairly comprehensive. It’s clear that an effort has been made to make the process as easy to understand as possible, both for the benefit of those having to work to the conditions of the licence and for those who will be watching closely and reporting suspected compliance breaches.
I’ll check back on the Code of Practice when the final version is published on 12th July, just to see if anything has actually been amended as a result of the mini-consultation, but I’m not holding my breath.
Press release from South Wales Police (28 June 2024):
NEATH MAN GUILTY OF DISTURBING RARE BIRDS OF PREY
A 68-year-old man from Neath has appeared before Swansea Magistrates Court where he was found guilty and fined more than £1,600 pounds for offences against the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 after disturbing a nest of one of the country’s rarest birds.
Honey Buzzard photo by the BBC Wildlife Unit
On Tuesday, June 25, John Paul Haffield was sentenced following a trial of disturbing a nest containing an extremely rare breeding pair of Honey Buzzards and their eggs.
He visited nest sites of Schedule 1 protected birds such as birds of prey and other species throughout Wales taking photographs of the birds and their young or their eggs within the nest and then offered those photographs for sale online on his own website.
The website contained more than 200 photographs of birds, many of which were protected under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Amongst those photographs were pictures of the Honey Buzzard, which he visited on a number of occasions. It is currently the only recorded nest in Wales.
Police Constable Mark Powell on secondment with the Natural Resources Wales Industry Regulation team said:
“Officers from Natural Resources Wales are successfully working with police forces across Wales, and the National Wildlife Crime Unit to investigate and prosecute those responsible for committing wildlife and rural crime offences.
“This was a particularly upsetting case. The defendant was actively taking photographs of birds protected under Schedule 1 and offering them for sale.
“Climbing to nests causes extreme stress to adult birds resulting in eggs not being properly incubated. On the Honey Buzzard nest there were two eggs and one failed.
“This is very disappointing as the Honey Buzzard is considered to be one of the rarest birds in Wales and this was the only known nest. Recently the nest featured on the BBC documentary Iolo’s Valleys and is actively monitored as part of a nest monitoring programme to help ensure the species survival.
“Mr Haffield maintained his innocence and elected to go to trial. Unfortunately for him he was found guilty and received fines and costs totalling £1,620.
“I would like to thank the Licencing Team at NRW and the expert witnesses who gave evidence in Court. Multi agency cooperation has never been better and together we will continue to investigate and prosecute offenders“.
To report an environmental incident, please contact NRW’s Incident communication line open 24/7, on 0300 065 3000.
Press release from Police Scotland (28 June 2024):
APPEAL FOR INFORMATION AFTER GOSHAWK NEST FOUND ABANDONED NEAR LOCH GYNACK
Police are appealing for information after a suspected attempt to target birds of prey in the Strathspey area.
On Saturday, 8 June, 2024, officers received a report of an active Goshawk nest having been found abandoned in suspicious circumstances, within a forest near Loch Gynack.
Enquiries were carried out at the site, in partnership with RSPB Scotland, showing the nest had been deliberately targeted with a shotgun. The nest and damaged branches were taken for x-ray with the assistance of staff at the Kincraig Highland Wildlife Park.
Police Constable Daniel Sutherland, Highland and Islands Wildlife Crime Liaison officer, said: “All birds of prey are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and it is illegal to kill them. I am asking anyone in the local community who may be able to help with our enquiries to come forward.
“The area is close to popular walking paths from Newton More. If you were walking in the area during May or early June, and may have seen or heard anything suspicious, then please get in touch.”
Anyone with information is asked to contact Police Scotland on 101, quoting reference CR/0211821/24, or make a call anonymously to the charity Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.
ENDS
UPDATE 24 October 2025: BBC’s Highland Cops programme features investigation into shot out Goshawk nest in Cairngorms National Park (here)
Blog readers may recall a press release in April 2024 from North Yorkshire Police detailing the execution of a search warrant on an unnamed grouse moor in the Yorkshire Dales National Park, in relation to the illegal persecution of hen harriers (see here).
This hen harrier was euthanised after suffering catastrophic injuries in an illegal trap set next to its nest on a grouse moor in Scotland in 2019. Photo by Ruth Tingay
The very first line of that press release said this:
“On Wednesday, (17 April 2024), a National Harrier Task Force operation was held at an undisclosed location in the Yorkshire Dales“.
That was the first time I’d heard of the ‘National Harrier Task Force’ but I’ve since learned much more about it.
I’ll begin this blog with the reproduction of a press article about the new Taskforce that appeared on a relatively obscure website (CandoFM) in May 2024, then I’ll provide some of my own commentary on this new initiative.
Here’s the press article:
Hen Harrier Task Force Launched To Tackle Illegal Persecution
A new task force has been launched to tackle the illegal persecution of hen harriers, one of the rarest bird of prey species in the UK.
The National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) will use innovative technology and strategic partnerships to detect, deter and disrupt offenders.
Given the rarity of hen harriers, significant resource is invested in their conservation. Satellite tags are fitted to the birds to research their ecology, but these tags have also revealed a concerning amount of illegal killing.
Criminals are intent on targeting this vulnerable species and operate with impunity. There have been no successful prosecutions in recent years despite the efforts of the police and partners.
In response, the launch of the Hen Harrier Task Force, led by Detective Inspector Mark Harrison of the NWCU, represents a pivotal shift in combating wildlife crime.
“The persecution of birds of prey is not just a wildlife issue; it’s serious crime blighting our countryside,” said DI Harrison. “With the launch of the Hen Harrier Task Force, we are determined to disrupt illegal activity and protect this vulnerable species.”
Central to the bird of prey task force’s approach is standardising reporting practices and improving the police response to incidents. Police and partners will work together to ensure resources are deployed swiftly and investigative opportunities are maximised. The task force will also bring together partners to engage with local communities and raise the profile of hen harrier persecution in a unified effort against wildlife crime.
“We cannot tackle this problem alone,” emphasised DI Harrison. “Through proactive partnerships and community engagement, we can strengthen our response and hold perpetrators to account.”
The task force will tackle crimes involving satellite tagged birds of prey. It is data-led, relying on analysis of police data and hotspot mapping. The NWCU has identified crime hot spots where they can focus enforcement efforts, as well as other areas of historic vulnerabilities where they will be seeking to revisit and raise their presence with landowners and land users. These meetings are an opportunity to highlight the issues/risks and identify ways to prevent further incidents from occurring.
Rather than purely focusing on the wildlife aspect of the crime, DI Harrison has tasked his team with taking a holistic view of the criminality and considering all types of offences. Criminals will often steal and destroy the satellite tags to conceal their offending. This could constitute criminal damage, theft and fraud. In the last few years alone, £100,000 worth of satellite tags have been lost in circumstances suspected to be criminal. The apparent use of firearms adds a further level of seriousness to these cases.
Recent examples of this include Anu, a hen harrier in South Yorkshire, which had its satellite tag deliberately cut off by someone possibly using scissors or a knife. Asta, a hen harrier in North Yorkshire, is another example. Although the dead bird was not found, its tag was recovered from a dead crow. The NWCU suspect that fitting the tag to a crow was an attempt to make it look like the hen harrier was still alive and hide the fact that it had been illegally killed. Unfortunately, the crow also died from unknown causes.
The task force’s multifaceted approach includes:
Improved incident response: Standardised reporting processes enable rapid response to suspicious incidents, ensuring investigative opportunities are maximised.
Innovative technology: From tracking drones to specialised detection dogs, the task force uses innovative tools to overcome logistical challenges and enhance evidence collection in remote areas.
Strategic partnerships: The taskforce brings together law enforcement, government agencies, non-governmental organisations, landowners and communities to tackle crime in hotspot areas.
Community awareness Initiatives: Building on successful models like Operation Owl, the task force seeks to boost public support and encourage vigilance against wildlife crime.
As the task force gains momentum, the team will be dedicated to protecting the UK’s hen harriers. Through collaboration and innovation, it is set to make a lasting impact in the fight against wildlife crime.
About the Hen Harrier Task Force
The Hen Harrier Task Force is an initiative led by the UK National Wildlife Crime Unit and supported by seven police forces (Cumbria, Derbyshire, Durham, Northumbria, North Yorkshire, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire), DEFRA, the RSPB, National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC), The Wildlife Trusts, GWCT, national parks, Country Land and Business Association (CLA), Natural England and The Moorland Association to combat the persecution of hen harriers in the UK. The taskforce aims to detect, deter, and disrupt offenders involved in wildlife crime by using technology and improving partnership working.
ENDS
My initial reaction to this new Taskforce was one of deep cynicism. Given some of the organisations involved, it just looks like yet another pseudo-‘partnership’ that will achieve nothing other than providing a convenient vehicle for DEFRA and its raptor-killing mates within the grouse shooting industry to be able to pretend that they have a zero tolerance approach to the illegal killing of hen harriers because they are all ‘cooperating’ on this Taskforce.
It’s a ploy that’s been utilised many times before and has simply facilitated the continued illegal killing of hen harriers (and other raptor species) without anyone being held to account. The RPPDG (Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group) is a prime example – established thirteen years ago in 2011 and has served no useful purpose in terms of tackling raptor persecution, but has provided numerous Government Ministers with an opportunity to appear to be dealing with it. Utter greenwashing.
Those of you with long memories will remember Operation Artemis, another police-led initiative launched twenty years ago in 2004 designed to work in ‘partnership’ with grouse moor owners to tackle the illegal killing of hen harriers. Here’s some info about it from the RSPB’s 2004 Birdcrime Report:
As described by the RSPB, Op Artemis was not well-received by the shooting industry, even resulting in an article published in The Times where the then Chief Executive of the Countryside Alliance, Simon Hart (who later became Chief Whip for the Conservatives) said the police operation was “part of a wider witch-hunt against gamekeepers“.
Operation Artemis stumbled along until 2007 when it was closed down after achieving nothing at all. Here are two more write-ups about it from the RSPB’s Birdcrime Reports in 2006 and 2007 respectively:
Given the complete failure of Operation Artemis to effectively tackle the illegal killing of hen harriers on driven grouse moors, how will this latest initiative, the National Hen Harrier Taskforce, rolled out some 20 years later, be any different?
Well, there are some positive differences.
This time around, the police have the benefit of access to hen harrier satellite-tracking data (provided by Natural England and the RSPB) which has allowed the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) to identify clear persecution hotspots, i.e. the estates where a disproportionate number of hen harriers are killed / ‘go missing’ in comparison to the rest of the species’ range.
These wildlife crime hotspots have been known for years but this time the NWCU has done its own analysis on the tag data and, even though it has drawn the same conclusions as the RSPB previously, because the hotspots have been identified by the Police it cuts off any opportunity for estate owners to claim that the data are ‘biased’ or ‘fabricated’ simply because the data belonged to the RSPB. In other words, the estate owners/managers can’t so easily dismiss the data as not being credible.
Another major difference this time around is that the police officer leading the Taskforce, Detective Inspector Mark Harrison, is taking a much more strategic approach. He’s not only looking at the offence of killing a hen harrier – he’s looking at the wider, associated offences such as theft (of very expensive satellite tags) and firearms offences. In combination, these crimes amount to a considerable and serious level of offending and can open the door to the police receiving permission to undertake covert tactics, including surveillance and communications monitoring.
To reach that stage, certain steps have be taken first as part of a longer-term strategy. These include police visits to the known hotspot estates (and I understand that there have now been several of these visits in addition to the one in the Yorkshire Dales National Park that was reported in April). If, after these visits, hen harrier persecution continues to be suspected at those hotspots, the police will then be in a position to demonstrate to senior officers that the ‘nicely nicely’ approach has been tried but hasn’t worked and so permission to begin more covert tactics is more likely to be granted.
Permission should be granted just on the basis of suspected firearms offences taking place. If the estate owners / managers / gamekeepers are denying any knowledge of the offences (which is what they’ve been doing for 30+ years) then the police can legitimately conclude that ‘someone’ [apparently unidentified] is running around an estate committing firearms offences and is clearly a threat to the public. As the fundamental role of the police is a duty to protect the public then I can’t see how permission to deploy more covert tactics can legitimately be withheld under these circumstances.
Of course none of these ideas are anything new – we’ve all been saying for years that if estate owners / managers / gamekeepers claim not to know who’s committing firearms offences on their land then there’s a serious concern that armed individuals are running amok and those estate owners / managers / gamekeepers should be fully supportive of the police doing everything they can to find them, just as any of us would if armed criminals were operating on our property.
However, the difference this time is that here we have a senior police officer, with a background specialism in covert surveillance (and thus a deep understanding of what hoops need to be jumped through to get permission for covert ops), prepared to push the envelope and take a more radical approach and actually implement this strategy instead of just talking about it, and I applaud him for that. Whether he’ll be allowed to stay in post for long enough to carry through with this strategy remains to be seen.
Another new initiative with this Hen Harrier Taskforce is a ‘mutual aid agreement’ between a number of police forces. One of the big issues in tackling wildlife crime, and particularly raptor persecution, has always been the availability of a wildlife crime officer to attend the scene promptly to secure evidence. We all know that the police are stretched, budgets are stretched, and it’s not always possible to get an officer on scene quickly – sometimes delays run into days and weeks, which is ridiculous. The mutual aid agreement means that a number of regional police forces have committed to making officers available at short notice for cross-border searches if the local officers can’t attend in time. If that works in practice, it should be good.
Once on scene, the Taskforce is also utilising a wide array of new techniques and equipment to aid any searches. These include the use of drones working within the range of satellite tag signals and the use of specialised detection dogs trained to search for bird corpses, amongst other things.
This all sounds very promising, on paper. Although to be fair, the Taskforce has already started the strategic plan by paying visits to those known persecution hotspots and has given fair warning to the estates about what they can expect if the persecution continues.
The only issue I have with that approach at the moment is that those crime hotspot estates have not been publicly named. The police say this is because they’re trying to build relationships of trust. I say they’re shielding the criminals. I have been told that the decision not to name hotspot estates is ‘not set in stone’ and may be revisited.
Let’s see.
I wish the Taskforce well and, given the current rate of ongoing hen harrier persecution on grouse moors, I’ll expect to see results in the not-too distant future.
UPDATE 17 July 2024: Is the Moorland Association already trying to sabotage the police’s new National Hen Harrier Taskforce? (here)
NatureScot is advertising six Licensing Officer posts in anticipation of its increased workload, not least the forthcoming grouse moor management licences that have been introduced through the Wildlife Management & Muirburn Act 2024.
Three positions are temporary until 31 March 2025 and three positions are permanent.
Salary – £31,719 per annum, 35 hours per week.
Location – Scotland (home and hybrid working will be considered)
Closing date – midday, 12 July 2024.
Job purpose summary
The post-holder will be a key member of NatureScot’s busy licensing team which sits within the Wildlife Management Activity, undertaking a range of duties to support the delivery of NatureScot’s statutory licensing function.
The NatureScot Licensing Team issue about 5000 protected species licences throughout the year. Licences enable actions that would otherwise be illegal. They cover certain types of activity such as disturbance to protected birds and animals, and are issued for purposes such as preserving public health and safety, preventing serious damage to livestock, development, science and research.
We aim to provide an efficient and responsive licensing service that enables people to manage protected wildlife effectively, balancing legitimate needs of individuals and business with our regulatory responsibilities.
Key Responsibilities and Accountabilities
Processing and issuing protected species licence applications, including assessing applications against the licensing tests and writing Statement of Reasons for issued licences;
Processing licence returns and licence amendments;
Assist in dealing with Freedom of Information requests, collating large volumes of requested information accurately and other reporting as required;
Undertake monitoring to ensure licence holders are complying with the conditions of their licence, and report any licensing breaches to Licencing Manager/ Wildlife Crime Officer as appropriate.
Skills Required (Please refer to these in your Supporting Statement)
Good understanding or experience of NatureScot’s licensing functions and approach, including knowledge of policy and legislation
Understanding and experience of wildlife management approaches and the need for wildlife management.
Good knowledge of Scottish protected species ecology
Ability to source, collate and analyse data from a variety of sources
Effective team working within a busy team including any experience of matrix management
Good communication skills (written and verbal) including the ability to effectively deal with a wide range of stakeholders and to understand and appreciate their needs including in relation to novel and contentious cases.
Good organisational and time management skills to effectively prioritise a high volume of reactive and proactive workload.
Can demonstrate ability to work using own initiative and to ask for help when required
Can demonstrate accuracy and attention to detail when undertaking day to day tasks
Prerequisites Required
Right to work in the UK
To undertake a Disclosure Scotland Application
Although Gaelic language is not a prerequisite it is a desirable skill in support of our commitment to our Gaelic Language Plan.
For further details and to apply, please see here.
The Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA) has a track record of submitting pointless petitions to the Scottish Parliament that needlessly tie up valuable parliamentary time (e.g. see here).
[‘Pointless’ as in had the SGA done its research it would already know that what it was proposing was already established policy].
Another pointless SGA petition crashed and burned yesterday, this time after almost two years of consideration.
This one (Petition number PE1966) was lodged on 7 September 2022 and called for, ‘The Scottish Government to formally recognise local knowledge and ensure it is given full consideration alongside scientific knowledge throughout consultation, decision-making processes and in policy development, specifically within the conservation arena‘.
It was lodged at a time when the SGA felt more aggrieved than usual, on the back of the Scottish Government announcing that it intended to bring in grouse moor licensing to deal with the decades-long criminality associated with the illegal killing of raptors on Scottish grouse moors. I’m guessing that the petition was timed in a desperate attempt to influence the passage of the Wildlife Management & Muirburn Bill. If that was indeed the intention, the SGA failed miserably.
The text of petition PE1966 was what I’d call a word salad – lots of scientific-sounding sentences that looked like they’d been cut and pasted from various academic sources but when strung together were neither coherent or convincing. You can judge it for yourself here:
Obviously PE1966 was received with great enthusiasm by the Petitions Committee, whose current membership includes the SNP’s Fergus Ewing MSP, who also just happens to be an SGA-member, has previously described himself as “a friend in Government” [to the SGA] and has controversially donated to the SGA’s fundraising auction.
In addition to Fergus Ewing, the Committee is chaired by Conservative Jackson Carlaw MSP, whose questionable behaviour, along with that of Fergus Ewing, has been the subject of an earlier blog (see here).
The Committee took the opportunity (as is its role) to ask questions of NatureScot and the Scottish Government about the SGA’s complaints, including a missive from Fergus Ewing about why the SGA wasn’t represented on the NatureScot Board (yes, seriously!).
The responses from both the Scottish Government and NatureScot easily rebutted the challenges and effectively handed the SGA it’s arse on a plate – you can read the various correspondence letters here. (Click on ‘Citizen Participation and Public Petitions Committee Consideration‘ and then click on ‘Written Submissions‘).
This resulted in Petition 1966 going absolutely nowhere and it was formally closed during yesterday’s session, but not before Ewing & Carlaw had a chance to regurgitate some slurs on the SGA’s behalf.
I find it somewhat ironic that the SGA is complaining about its views not being taken seriously by politicians when a number of its members have, for several years, openly engaged in the most vile and misogynistic online abuse of some of Scotland’s politicians, especially towards former Minister Lorna Slater and former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon.
Here’s one of many recent examples, this one published in March this year:
This deeply offensive tweet was viewed 422 times on Twitter and received one repost and 5 likes. Not a single person challenged him about it.
Posted on Twitter under the name of Bob Connelly with a username of @curlybob69, this person describes himself as a Perthshire gamekeeper and he’s wearing an SGA pin badge in his header photo:
An identical profile is used for a Facebook account under the same name:
This looks like the same gamekeeper called Bob Connelly who featured in an article published by The Courier a couple of years ago, which laughingly asked, ‘Are gamekeepers victim of a hate campaign‘??!! (see here).
I wonder if it’s the same Bob Connelly who is listed at Companies House as a Director of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association’s Charitable Trust?
Is posting repugnant, misogynistic online abuse towards a female politician fitting behaviour of a charity Trustee? That would be a question for the SGA.
Is posting repugnant, misogynistic online abuse towards a female politician fitting behaviour of a Director of an organisation that’s demanding parliamentary time, attention and recognition? That would also be a question for the SGA but also for the politicians.
Is posting repugnant, misogynistic online abuse towards a female politician fitting behaviour of a shotgun certificate/firearms licence holder? That would be a question for the Chief Constable of Police Scotland.
Two mainstream BBC TV programmes, Landward and Countryfile, last week included features on raptor conservation projects in south Scotland – both worth watching on BBC iPlayer if you missed them.
Landward featured the brilliant George Smith, a volunteer from the Scottish Raptor Study Group, who has been monitoring peregrines across south Scotland for almost 40 years. He’s filmed visiting peregrine nest sites to ring chicks (under licence) and to collect DNA samples (also under licence).
It was a direct result of George’s dedicated and meticulous research that led to the recent conviction of part-time gamekeeper Timothy Hall and his son, Lewis Hall, for the illegal laundering of wild peregrines that were stolen from nests in south Scotland and then sold on to falconers in the Middle East, allegedly for enormous profit according to the Crown.
Worryingly, some more peregrine nests that George is monitoring this year have failed in suspicious circumstances and Police Scotland are currently investigating.
This episode of Landward is available on BBC iPlayer here (peregrine segment starts at 7 min 48 sec) and is available for the next 11 months.
Countryfile had two features of interest to readers of this blog. First was an overview of the conservation restoration work going on at the Tarras Valley Nature Reserve, the former Langholm grouse moor that was bought out from Buccleuch Estates by the Langholm community in 2022. Tarras Valley NR Estate Manager Jenny Barlow provides a commentary on the significance of the reserve and describes some of the projects underway.
Then Dr Cat Barlow from the South Scotland Golden Eagle Project took a presenter out into the hills in search of one of the satellite-tagged golden eagles that had previously been translocated to south Scotland to boost the formerly tiny remnant population. Cat discusses the project’s successes as well as the ongoing threat of illegal persecution, highlighted by what Police believe was the illegal shooting and killing of golden eagle ‘Merrick‘ last October, very close to the boundary of the Raeshaw Estate in south Scotland. Unfortunately Cat didn’t discuss the suspicious disappearances of a number of the translocated sub-adult eagles from the Western Isles that are rumoured to have ‘vanished’ when they dispersed north from southern Scotland. The piece also includes some of the important educational work the project is undertaking with local school children in south Scotland in an attempt to improve the future protection of eagles in this region.
This episode of Countryfile is available on BBC iPlayer here (Tarras Valley segment starts at 39 min 10 sec and South Scotland Golden Eagle Project segment starts at 46 min 30 sec). This episode is only available for another 26 days.
Raptor Persecution UK 