Category: News

Dead golden eagle found on Scottish grouse moor

Yesterday, the BBC News website ran a story about the discovery of a dead golden eagle on the Queensberry Estate, an estate within the Buccleuch portfolio in Dumfriesshire.

The eagle had reportedly been discovered on Saturday and is believed to have been one of the young eagles from the South Scotland Golden Eagle Project, where eagles are being translocated from other Scottish regions in an effort to boost the declining population in the south.

Tests are currently underway to establish the cause of death.

It looks to me like this BBC News article was prompted by a press release from Buccleuch and is probably an attempt by the estate to undertake a damage limitation exercise and ‘get its story out first’ before the cause of death has been determined, just in case it turns out to be yet another persecution incident reported in this area. If it turns out that the eagle has died of natural causes then the estate has had a bit of free, positive publicity. It’s win/win for them.

However, if this eagle does turn out to have been killed illegally, the BBC News report will have already alerted the person(s) who killed the eagle that the corpse has been recovered and the authorities are investigating, which provides the culprit(s) every opportunity to hide/destroy any evidence linking them to the crime. Not the brightest move.

The premature release of this news also smacks of hypocrisy. Last year, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA) went into hysterical meltdown after Police Scotland issued an appeal for information about the discovery of a dead golden eagle on a grouse moor in Strathbraan, because the appeal was issued prior to a post mortem being undertaken (i.e. the cause of death was unknown) and the SGA claimed the appeal was ‘insensitive’ and had caused ’emotional distress’ (see here and here).

Will we see the SGA complaining about a premature press release from Buccleuch? No, thought not.

UPDATE 29th April 2023: ‘No definitive case of death’ for golden eagle found dead on Scottish grouse moor (here)

Death of white-tailed eagle on Isle of Wight recorded as ‘uncertain’ as presence of avian flu restricted toxicology tests

In March last year a young, satellite-tagged white-tailed eagle was found dead on the Isle of Wight in what were considered to be suspicious circumstances and a police investigation was launched (see here).

This was the third white-tailed eagle death since October 2021 and all three birds were from the Isle of Wight Reintroduction Project,  a Government-backed five-year project bringing young sea eagles from Scotland and releasing them on the Isle of Wight to re-establish this species in part of its former range.

The two other dead eagles found during that period included the one found on the Shaftesbury Estate in Dorset in January 2022, which was confirmed to have been illegally killed by ingesting an extraordinary high quantity of the rat poison Brodifacoum but the subsequent police investigation was botched by Dorset Police (see here); and the eagle found dead on a game shoot in West Sussex in October 2021, confirmed to have been illegally killed by ingesting the poison Bendiocarb and whose death is currently the subject of an on-going police investigation (see here).

A preliminary post-mortem on the eagle found dead on the Isle of Wight revealed it was carrying avian flu, but at that time it was unknown whether avian flu had been the cause of death. Later tests revealed it had not.

The presence of avian flu has important consequences for how the corpse is handled and stored under strict government rules, and unfortunately this impacts on the ability to conduct standard toxicology analyses for other potential causes of death, notably the detection of certain poisons.

Last week Hampshire & Isle of Wight Constabulary issued the following statement about the death of this eagle:

Death of White-tailed Eagle remains uncertain after conclusion of police investigation.

A police investigation into the death of a satellite-tracked White-tailed Eagle on the Isle of Wight has found no evidence of unlawful killing.

It comes after Hampshire Constabulary were called shortly after 5pm on Thursday 24 February 2022 to a report of a dead sea eagle on Bowcombe Road on the Isle of Wight.

The circumstances surrounding the death were investigated by local Country Watch officers, along with the support of various partners including the Animal and Plant Health Agency, DEFRA, Forestry England and the Roy Dennis Wildlife Foundation.

Officers explored all possible lines of enquiry into the death, including; analysis of satellite tracking data, evidential land searches in and around the site where the bird was found deceased, obtaining accounts from witnesses in the local area at the time, comprehensive veterinary x-rays as well as conducting specialist post mortem examinations.

The bird initially tested positive for Avian Influenza (AI), but subsequent post-mortem examination carried out under strict AI protocols concluded that this was not the cause of death.

Standard toxicology testing was not possible due to the AI positive test, but the limited analysis that was undertaken did reveal elevated background levels of two rodenticides, brodifacoum and difenacoum, though not at sufficiently high levels to have caused the death of the bird. As such the post-mortem concluded that the actual cause of death of the White-tailed Eagle remains uncertain.

During the post mortem, there was no evidence of any lesions on the sea eagle to explain the cause of death.

Police Sergeant Stuart Ross of Hampshire Constabulary’s Country Watch team, said: “Hampshire Constabulary has carried out a thorough criminal investigation into the death of the White-tailed Eagle and have found no evidence of unlawful killing from the lines of enquires carried out and evidence gathered by officers.

“As such, we are satisfied that there is no evidence of criminal offences having taken place and that the death of the White-tailed Eagle is being treated as uncertain at this time”.

“The criminal aspect of this investigation has now concluded, but we urge all users of rodenticides, particularly brodifacoum, which is known to be highly toxic to wildlife, to follow all guidelines regarding use. Brodifacoum should only be used in and around buildings.”

The reintroduction of White-tailed Eagles on the Isle of Wight is part of a dedicated scheme run, under a Natural England licence, by Forestry England and the Roy Dennis Wildlife Foundation.

ENDS

There are no complaints about Hampshire & Isle of Wight Police’s handling of this investigation. They were responsive, thorough and transparent.

The police statement, above, is fairly detailed and informative. However, caution should be applied when interpreting the statement about the presence of ‘elevated background levels of of two rodenticides, brodifacoum and difenacoum, though not at sufficiently high levels to have caused the death of the bird. As such the post-mortem concluded that the actual cause of death of the White-tailed Eagle remains uncertain‘.

Whilst this is factually accurate, and I’m sure not intended to mislead in any way, readers should be aware that the storage of the eagle’s tissues in formalin (as required for AI positive birds) reduces the laboratory’s ability to determine the significance of these rodenticides.

Here is an excerpt from the final lab report:

‘It was suspected that this white-tailed sea eagle had been poisoned, or possibly exposed to anticoagulant rodenticides. Laboratory analysis for some likely pesticides has been undertaken on samples of fixed tissue only, although it is possible that typical abuse pesticides (such as bendiocarb) would not be detected within this sample type. These tests have detected and confirmed a residue of the anticoagulant rodenticides brodifacoum and difenacoum in the fixed liver from this eagle, but the significance of these residues is uncertain given the prior treatment of the sample with formalin. Therefore, the actual cause of death of this white-tailed sea eagle remains uncertain, but this result confirms that it had been exposed prior to death to brodifacoum and difenacoum’. 

Unfortunately we won’t ever now know whether this eagle had ingested high quantities of rodenticides, or whether it had been poisoned with a banned substance such as Bendiocarb, because of the rules on the handling and storing of tissues containing Avian Influenza. And this may prove to be an issue that hampers other investigations if avian flu is detected in a raptor that has died in what are perceived to be suspicious circumstances.

But at least in this case, the police did conduct searches of the land where the eagle was found dead, and have also included a warning in their press statement about the proper use of rodenticides.

To follow news about the reintroduced white-tailed eagles please visit the Roy Dennis Wildlife Foundation website here.

Scottish gamekeeper charged with killing Sparrowhawk on a grouse moor – new court hearing

A court hearing has been delayed once again in the case of a Scottish gamekeeper accused of the alleged killing of a sparrowhawk.

The un-named 22-year-old gamekeeper was charged in September 2021 (see here) for the alleged killing on a grouse moor in Inverness-shire and he was due in court on 30th September 2022.

The case was delayed until 10th November 2022 (see here).

The case was delayed again until January 2023 (see here).

The case has now been further delayed until 31 March 2023.

As this is a live case no comments will be accepted on this blog post until criminal proceedings have ended. Thanks for your understanding.

Buzzard shot in Kent – Police appeal for information

Press statement from Kent Police (6 February 2023):

BUZZARD KILLED IN A VILLAGE NEAR MAIDSTONE

Kent Police’s Rural Task Force is investigating the shooting of a bird of prey in Otham, Maidstone.

At around 3.30pm on Friday 3 February 2023, a member of the public reported a buzzard had fallen into a garden in Otham Street after being shot.

It was taken to a veterinary surgery for treatment but had to be euthanised due to the extent of its injuries.

Buzzards are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and officers are urging witnesses or anyone with information to contact them.

Police Sergeant Darren Walshaw said:

“We are investigating this incident with colleagues from the RSPCA and suspect the bird was shot. We understand there were several people in the area at the time including walkers, residents in their gardens, and two people who were on the roof of a nearby property. We are urging anyone that can assist our enquiries to contact us“.

Witnesses should call 01622 604100, quoting Rural Task Force reference 16-23. You can also call Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555111 or complete the online form on the website.

ENDS

Scottish Government will provide response at same time the taskforce review on SSPCA powers is published

Last week I blogged about how the Scottish Government intended to publish its independent Taskforce review on SSPCA powers ‘prior to summer 2023’, even though the review was submitted to Government on 22nd October 2022 (see here).

I pointed out that we may then have to wait another year after publication of the review for the Scottish Government’s response, just as we did with the Werritty Review.

However, journalist Alistair Grant from The Scotsman, has followed up on the story and has managed to get a quote from an unnamed Scottish Government spokeswoman who told him the Government’s response will be published ‘alongside’ the taskforce’s review [‘prior to summer 2023’]. I wonder if this is the same spokeswoman who told him in December 2022 that the Taskforce’s review would be ‘published within weeks‘?!

The Scotsman article includes a further quote from the Government that sidesteps the criticism about why a number of legitimate stakeholders were excluded from participating in the Taskforce’s review.

I’ve submitted a request to the Scottish Government for the full list of stakeholders it provided to the Taskforce Chair, to help understand if the conservation and animal welfare stakeholders were excluded from the review by the Government or by the Taskforce Chair.

Here’s the article in last week’s Scotsman – many thanks to Alistair Grant for following up on this subject.

Concerns have been raised that conservation groups have been excluded from a taskforce set up to consider handing more powers to the Scottish SPCA to allow it to better investigate wildlife crime.

Conservationist Dr Ruth Tingay said the “inherent bias” could leave the Scottish Government “wide open to a potential legal challenge”.

Campaigners have repeatedly criticised the “extraordinary” timeline of delays over the proposals, which were first mooted more than a decade ago.

There are ongoing concerns over the illegal killing of birds of prey in Scotland. Expanding the Scottish SPCA’s current powers would allow it to investigate cases involving animal deaths and illegal traps.

Ministers previously said the taskforce had completed its work and its report would be published within weeks. However, in response to a freedom of information request by Dr Tingay, the Government merely said the report would be published “prior to summer”, despite it being submitted to ministers in October last year.

Dr Tingay, writing on the Raptor Persecution UK blog, said taskforce participants appeared to be “heavily weighted to the game-shooting industry”.

She wrote: “Why were the majority of invited non-governmental organisations those who have previously been vociferous in their opposition to increased SSPCA powers…and who presumably, despite their rhetoric about having a ‘zero tolerance’ for raptor persecution/wildlife crime, are still dead set against measures that would help tackle it?”

If the taskforce recommendations do not support increased powers for the SSPCA, she said, “this inherent bias in participation leaves the Government wide open to a potential legal challenge by conservationists who could argue that their exclusion from participating in the review has resulted in an unfair process”.

The taskforce is chaired by Susan Davies, chief executive of the Scottish Seabird Centre, and its members include Police Scotland, the Crown Office, the SSPCA, RSPB Scotland and NatureScot, as well as the British Association for Shooting Conservation, National Farmers’ Union of Scotland, Scottish Land and Estates and the Scottish Gameekeepers’ Association.

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: “This review was conducted independently, in close consultation with key stakeholders and with support from Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. The review was led by Susan Davies who is currently chief executive of the Scottish Seabird Centre and has a wealth of experience in this area.

“We are working with key stakeholders, including Police Scotland and the Crown Office, to consider the findings before the report is published alongside the Scottish Government’s official response.”

ENDS

DEFRA Minister responds to House of Lords question on avian flu risk posed by shot, dumped game birds

Many thanks to Life Peer Natalie Bennett for tabling a question in the House of Lords about the avian flu risk posed by the dumping of shot game birds in the countryside.

Contaminated bird flu carcasses are usually dealt with as a bio hazard. Photo: Tim Nicholson

This question was triggered by (a) DEFRA Minister and game bird shooter Lord Benyon’s previous denial of having seen any evidence of shot, dumped game birds, and (b) the discovery of a load of shot pheasants that had been dumped in the River Derwent in the Howardian Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) on Xmas Day, 2022.

You’ll note that Lord Benyon is no longer claiming ignorance of the evidence of shot game birds being dumped, and let’s be honest, he couldn’t credibly continue to claim ignorance given the number of high profile incidents that have documented in recent years (e.g. see list here).

But you’ll also notice that he doesn’t acknowledge this is an ongoing issue directly linked to the game shooting industry (of which he’s a prominent member). Instead, he argues that, “the events that led to the dead pheasants being found in the river in the Howardian Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty are unknown“. I wonder how he thinks they got there? Or how all the other dumped pheasants, partridges, ducks, geese etc found their way to roadside verges, woodlands, rivers etc, some of them wrapped inside bin liners?

He also fails to address the question about the avian flu risk posed by shot, dumped game birds, instead discussing the [perceived] non-significant risk from wildfowling, driven game shooting and pigeon shooting activities.

That’s an interesting position, given the widespread reporting of avian flu in pheasants across the country (e.g. see here and here) and the recent news that avian flu has been detected in foxes and otters in the UK, most likely from consuming infected bird carcasses (here).

We shouldn’t really be surprised though, given that DEFRA has apparently just given ministerial clearance to cut the previous 90-day surveillance period for avian flu in imported gamebirds from the EU to a minimum 30-day surveillance period (this means that following a confirmed case of avian flu in the French birds, instead of having to wait 90 days prior to importing the chicks, UK game shoot managers may only have to wait 30 days). What a selfish, short-sighted, idiotic idea.

Private Eye’s explanation for this is spot on:

Shot pheasants, ducks & geese found dumped on nature reserve in Yorkshire

The rotting carcasses of shot pheasants, ducks and geese have been found today, dumped on the Otley Wetlands Nature Reserve in West Yorkshire.

Morgan Caygill (@atypicalbirder) posted the following on Twitter this afternoon:

From the grisly photograph it’s clear that at least some of these birds have been ‘breasted’ (i.e. the breast meat has been removed, presumably for consumption).

It’s not clear whether the birds were all shot on the nature reserve or whether they had been shot elsewhere and just dumped on the reserve. It seems unlikely that bird shooting would be permitted on this award-winning reserve as it’s previously been celebrated as a ‘safe haven for wildlife’ (here).

Even if shooting is permitted here, however, the dumping of shot bird corpses would not be permitted. It’s an especially stupid and reckless thing to do given the ongoing concerns about the spread of avian flu.

Regular blog readers will know that the dumping of shot gamebirds is not a new phenomenon, it’s been happening up and down the country for years, prior to this latest outbreak of avian flu: e.g. in Cheshire, Scottish borders (here), Norfolk (here), Perthshire (here), Berkshire (here), North York Moors National Park (here) and some more in North York Moors National Park (here) and even more in North Yorkshire (here), Co. Derry (here), West Yorkshire (here), and again in West Yorkshire (here), N Wales (here), mid-Wales (here), Leicestershire (here), Lincolnshire (here), Somerset (here), Derbyshire’s Peak District National Park (here), Suffolk (here), Leicestershire again (here), Somerset again (here), Liverpool (here), even more in North Wales (here) even more in Wales, again (here), in Wiltshire (here) in Angus (here), in Somerset again (here) and once again in North Yorkshire (here).

The dumping of shot game birds is a breach of the Code of Good Shooting Practice which states:

‘Shoot managers must ensure they have appropriate arrangements in place for the sale or consumption of the anticipated bag in advance of all shoot days‘.

The Code of Good Shooting Practice is, however, in effect, just advice. It has no legal standing and is unenforceable. It’s handy for the shooting industry to point to it as ‘evidence’ that the industry is capable of self-regulation but it’s not really worth the paper it’s written on if shoot managers can breach it without consequence, as they so often do.

Last year, almost a year to the day, after yet another episode of dumped shot game birds, there was an exchange in the House of Lords where game bird shooter and DEFRA Minister Lord Benyon denied that there was evidence of shot gamebirds being dumped (I know!) and Lord Newby, having seen the evidence provided by this blog, stated he would pursue Benyon to find out what plans the Government had for dealing with it (see here). Unfortunately nothing ever came of that but in December 2022 Green Peer Natalie Bennett said she’d chase it up with Benyon.

UPDATE 5th February 2023: DEFRA Minister responds to House of Lords question on avian flu risk posed by shot, dumped game birds (here).

Wildlife crime: key conservation organisations ‘excluded’ from Scottish Government’s review on increasing SSPCA powers

In July last year, the Scottish Government finally got around to establishing an independent Taskforce to consider whether the Scottish SPCA should be granted additional powers to help investigate raptor persecution and other wildlife crime (see here).

As a quick recap, the SSPCA’s current powers (under animal welfare legislation) limits their investigations to cases that involve a live animal in distress (including some wildlife crimes). The proposed new powers would allow them to also investigate wildlife crimes under the Wildlife & Countryside Act legislation, e.g. where the victim is already dead, and also incidents where a victim may not be present (e.g. if an illegally-set pole trap or a poisoned bait was discovered). See here for further detail.

This Taskforce, chaired by Susan Davies FRSB, was established after 11 long years of political can-kicking by the SNP only because the Scottish Greens insisted on its inclusion in the historic Bute House Agreement, the power-sharing policy document published by the two parties in 2021:

‘The independent taskforce to consider whether the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Scottish SPCA) should be given extra powers to investigate wildlife crime will be asked to report back in a timeframe that will allow any changes to the Scottish SPCA powers to be delivered by legislation implementing changes to grouse and other wildlife management in the course of this parliamentary session‘.

It was expected that the Taskforce’s recommendations would feed into the forthcoming draft legislation on grouse moor licensing (the Wildlife Management (Grouse) Bill) that is expected to progress to Stage 1 of parliamentary scrutiny in the coming weeks (see here).

Indeed, in December 2022, the Scotsman ran an article suggesting that the Scottish Government had said the Taskforce’s review was complete and would be published ‘within weeks‘ (see here), just in time to be considered alongside the Wildlife Management (Grouse) Bill.

However, as has happened so often on this particular issue, it looks like the Scottish Government has moved the goal posts.

I submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Scottish Government at the beginning of January 2023, asking, amongst other things, for details of when the Taskforce’s review would be published.

The Government’s response, which I received yesterday evening, said the review had been submitted to the Government on 22nd October 2022 but wasn’t expected to be published until ‘prior to summer 2023‘. That’s quite a different response to the one the Scotsman reported of the Government expecting it to be published ‘within weeks‘.

Does that mean the Taskforce’s recommendations won’t be fed into the Scottish Parliament’s consideration of how the forthcoming grouse shooting licencing scheme will operate and be enforced? How does that meet the requirements laid out in the Bute House Agreement between the Scottish Greens and the SNP?

But that’s not the only concern uncovered by the FoI response.

I also asked the Scottish Government some questions about which organisations and individuals were invited and had contributed evidence to the Taskforce review. The answer is alarming to say the least, with invited participants heavily weighted to the game-shooting industry:

Apart from RSPB Scotland, where were the invites to other conservation and wildlife organisations such as Scottish Badgers, Scottish Raptor Study Group, OneKind, League Against Cruel Sports, REVIVE coalition, Scottish Wildlife Trust, Scottish Environment Link etc? Why were they excluded, when they all have legitimate and evidenced concerns about the poor level of wildlife crime enforcement that has led to the proposed extended powers for the SSPCA?

Why were the majority of invited non-governmental organisations those who have previously been vociferous in their opposition to increased SSPCA powers (e.g. see here, here and here) and who presumably, despite their rhetoric about having a ‘zero tolerance’ for raptor persecution/wildlife crime, are still dead set against measures that would help tackle it?

I’ve gone back to the Scottish Government to ask for the ‘key list of stakeholders and those who had previously engaged with [the Scottish Government] on the matter of SSPCA powers‘ that was provided to the Taskforce Chair, to determine whether this bias was determined by the Scottish Government or by the Taskforce Chair.

Either way, if the Taskforce recommendations do not support increased powers for the SSPCA, this inherent bias in participation leaves the Government wide open to a potential legal challenge by conservationists who could argue that their exclusion from participating in the review has resulted in an unfair process.

There is an alternative view. Let’s say that the Taskforce review does recommend increased powers for the SSPCA, then by inviting an overload of anti-SSPCA game shooting organisations, the Taskforce Chair has cleverly covered off any opportunity for them to suggest their views were under-represented in the review process.

Unfortunately, it looks like we have many more months of waiting to find out what, exactly, the Taskforce review recommends. And if our experience of the Werritty Review is anything to go by, we may be waiting a further year for the Government to set out its response to the Taskforce’s recommendations.

UPDATE 7th February 2023: Scottish Government will provide response at same time the Taskforce review on SSPCA powers is published (here).

UPDATE 7th March 2023: More detail provided on why key conservation organisations were excluded from Scottish Government’s review on increasing SSPCA powers (here).

For those new to this subject, here’s the political timeline, now in its 12th year, that has led to the current position:

February 2011: Increased powers for the SSPCA was first suggested by MSP Peter Peacock as an amendment during the Wildlife & Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill debates. The then Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham rejected it as an amendment but suggested a public consultation was in order.

September 2011: Seven months later Elaine Murray MSP (Scottish Labour) lodged a parliamentary motion that further powers for the SSPCA should be considered.

November 2011: Elaine Murray MSP (Scottish Labour) formalised the question in a P&Q session and the next Environment Minister, Stewart Stevenson MSP, then promised that the consultation would happen ‘in the first half of 2012’.

September 2012: Nine months later and nothing had happened so I asked Paul Wheelhouse MSP, as the new Environment Minister, when the consultation would take place. The response, in October 2012, was:

“The consultation has been delayed by resource pressures but will be brought forward in the near future”.

July 2013: Ten months later and still no sign so I asked the Environment Minister (still Paul Wheelhouse) again. In August 2013, this was the response:

“We regret that resource pressures did further delay the public consultation on the extension of SSPCA powers. However, I can confirm that the consultation document will be published later this year”.

September 2013: At a meeting of the PAW Executive Group, Minister Wheelhouse said this:

“The consultation on new powers for the SSPCA will be published in October 2013“.

January 2014: In response to one of this blog’s readers who wrote to the Minister (still Paul Wheelhouse) to ask why the consultation had not yet been published:

“We very much regret that resource pressures have caused further delays to the consultation to gain views on the extension of SSPCA powers. It will be published in the near future“.

31 March 2014: Public consultation launched.

1 September 2014: Consultation closed.

26 October 2014: I published my analysis of the consultation responses here.

22 January 2015: Analysis of consultation responses published by Scottish Government. 233 responses (although 7,256 responses if online petition included – see here).

I was told a decision would come from the new Environment Minister, Dr Aileen McLeod MSP, “in due course”.

1 September 2015: One year after the consultation closed and still nothing.

25 February 2016: In response to a question posed by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change & Environment Committee, Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod said: “I have some further matters to clarify with the SSPCA, however I do hope to be able to report on the Scottish Government’s position on this issue shortly“.

May 2016: Dr Aileen McLeod fails to get re-elected and loses her position as Environment Minister. Roseanna Cunningham is promoted to a newly-created position of Cabinet Secretary for the Environment.

12 May 2016: Mark Ruskell MSP (Scottish Greens) submits the following Parliamentary question:

Question S5W-00030 – To ask the Scottish Government when it will announce its decision regarding extending the powers of the Scottish SPCA to tackle wildlife crime.

26 May 2016: Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham responds with this:

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

1 September 2016: Two years after the consultation closed and still nothing.

9 January 2017: Mark Ruskell MSP (Scottish Greens) submits the following Parliamentary question:

Question S5W-05982 – To ask the Scottish Government by what date it will publish its response to the consultation on the extension of wildlife crime investigative powers for inspectors in the Scottish SPCA.

17 January 2017: Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham responds:

A decision on whether to extend the investigatory powers of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals will be announced in the first half of 2017.

31 May 2017: Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham rejects an extension of powers for the SSPCA ‘based on legal advice’ and instead announces, as an alternative, a pilot scheme of Special Constables for the Cairngorms National Park (here). It later emerged in 2018 that this pilot scheme was also an alternative to the Government’s 2016 manifesto pledge to establish a Wildlife Crime Investigation Unit as part of Police Scotland – a pledge on which it had now reneged (see here).

November 2019: The pilot scheme of Special Constables in the Cairngorms National Park was an absolute failure as a grand total of zero wildlife crimes were recorded by the Special Constables but plenty were reported by others (see here).

June 2020: Mark Ruskell (Scottish Greens) proposed further powers for the SSPCA at Stage 2 of the Animals and Wildlife Bill. The latest Environment Minister, Mairi Gougeon persuaded him to withdraw the proposed amendment on the basis that she’d consider establishing a taskforce to convene ‘this summer’ to consider increased powers (see here).

December 2020: Mark Ruskell (Scottish Greens) submits two Parliamentary questions asking about the status of the taskforce and who is serving on it (see here).

January 2021: New Environment Minister Ben Macpherson says the taskforce has not yet been appointed but that it is “expected to be established later this year“ (see here).

September 2021: In the 2021 to 2022 Programme for Government it was announced that the ‘independent taskforce [Ed: still to be appointed] will report before the end of 2022’ (see here).

May 3 2022: In an interview with Max Wiszniewski of the REVIVE coalition for grouse moor reform, new Environment Minister Mairi McAllan said: “It’s imminent and I wish I could tell you today but we are just finalising the last few points for the membership but I’m hoping to be able to make an announcement about that in the next few weeks“ (see here).

1 July 2022: Scottish Government announces Susan Davies has been appointed to lead the taskforce review and will ‘publish a report later this year’ (see here).

27 December 2022: A Scottish Government spokesperson tells Scotsman journalist the taskforce has completed its review and its findings will be published ‘within weeks’ (see here).

31 January 2023: An FoI response from the Scottish Government to this blog’s author reveals the Taskforce’s review was submitted to the Scottish Government on 22nd October 2022 and will be published ‘prior to summer 2023’.

7 February 2023: Scottish Government tells journalist from The Scotsman that it will provide a response at the same time the Taskforce review on SSPCA powers is published (here).

Shot buzzard in Essex succumbs to its injuries

The buzzard that was found shot in Colchester, Essex, earlier this month has unfortunately not survived its injuries.

It was found on 11th January 2023 near to Hardy’s Green and Heckford Bridge and was picked up by a member of the public.

The buzzard had suffered a broken wing and internal injuries and was being cared for by professionals at Colchester Owl Rescue. It succumbed to its injuries over the weekend.

Thanks to Essex Police’s Rural, Wildlife & Heritage Crime team for the update.

Essex Police’s investigation into the shooting of this buzzard is ongoing. If anyone has any information please contact Essex Police on Tel: 101, quoting incident reference # 42/13298/23.

The shot buzzard. Photo: Essex Police Wildlife Team & Colchester Owl Rescue
X-ray showing at least 3 shotgun pellets (highlighted by RPUK). Photo: Essex Police Wildlife Team & Colchester Owl Rescue

Free online course for veterinary professionals to increase awareness & understanding of crimes against birds of prey

The RSPB’s Investigations Team has joined forces with a leading wildlife vet, Mark Naguib BVMS(Hons) CertAVP(ZooMed) MRCVS, to create a free, two-hour online course for veterinary professionals to help increase awareness and understanding of crimes against birds of prey.

An x-ray of a raptor containing shotgun pellets. Photo: Mark Naguib

The course, Birds of prey in veterinary practice: Clinical presentations of poisoning, shooting and trapping, includes the following modules

  • Introduction to birds of prey and identification
  • Overview of legislation (specific to each UK country)
  • Clinical presentations of shooting, trapping and poisoning
  • Guidance on appropriate agencies to contact
  • Free downloads to keep and use in the veterinary practice

The course is only available to veterinary professionals (i.e. veterinary surgeons and Registered Veterinary Nurses) and can contribute to the individual’s Continued Professional Development record.

For further information please read this RSPB blog (here) and to register for the free online course please visit here.