Category: Opinion

Wildlife crime penalties: have your say

There has long been dissatisfaction with the penalties handed out to those convicted of wildlife crime. Yesterday’s sentencing of convicted mass raptor poisoner Allen Lambert of Stody Estate merely served to highlight the issue, again. But what we perceive to be unacceptably lenient penalties is certainly nothing new, and especially those sentences given to people (usually gamekeepers) associated with the game-shooting industry.

There’s a huge lack of public confidence in the way the judiciary deals with these criminals, with many people often talking about corruption, vested interests, biased judges/sheriffs etc. We’ve all come to expect unduly lenient measures – you only have to look at the comments on social media even before Lambert’s sentence was announced – people were predicting a metaphorical ‘slap on the wrist’, and in essence, that’s indeed what he got, even though the judge had stated that Lambert’s crimes “had crossed the custody threshold“.

Quite often (although apparently not in Lambert’s case), the accused’s employer (typically a wealthy landowner) will even fork out for a Queen’s Counsel (QC) to put forward the accused’s defence. A QC is considered to be an exceptional lawyer of outstanding ability – it’s hardly a level playing field to pit a QC against an ‘average’ public prosecutor, leading to even more public concern about the perceived ‘fairness’ of these trials and any subsequent punishment.

Sentencing for wildlife crimes has been hit or miss in both Scotland and England. For most wildlife crime offences (although not all), the maximum sentence available for each offence is a £5,000 fine and/or a six month custodial sentence. So for example, if someone had been convicted of poisoning two buzzards, they could potentially be hit with a £10,000 fine and a 12 month custodial sentence. As far as we’re aware, the maximum sentence has never been given. Instead, a large dollop of judicial discretion has been applied, resulting in weak and inconsistent penalties and a growing level of frustration amongst the general public who wish to see justice being done.

For example, in 2011, a gamekeeper in South Lanarkshire was convicted of poisoning four buzzards with the banned pesticide Alphachloralose. His sentence? An admonishment (basically a telling off). The maximum penalty available to the Sheriff was a £20,000 fine and/or a two-year custodial sentence. What was even more astonishing about this case was that the gamekeeper had been convicted of another wildlife crime three years earlier (illegal use of a crow cage trap in which he’d caught a buzzard), on the same land, for which he’d received a £300 fine. So the poisoning of four buzzards with a banned pesticide was his second conviction and yet he was given the most lenient penalty available.

A few months later, and just down the road in South Lanarkshire, a second gamekeeper was convicted of possessing the banned pesticide Carbofuran, which had been found in his vehicle. No charges were brought for the discovery of a dead buzzard and a pheasant bait (both tested positive for Carbofuran) found on land where this gamekeeper worked. His sentence? A £635 fine for possession (maximum sentence available was a £5,000 fine and/or a six month custodial sentence).

Things may be about to change in Scotland. Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse has, to his credit, instructed a review of wildlife crime penalties. The group’s remit is:

“To examine and report on how wildlife crime in Scotland is dealt with by the criminal courts, with particular reference to the range of penalties available and whether these are sufficient for the purposes of deterrence and whether they are commensurate with the damage to ecosystems that may be caused by wildlife crime”.

Now, while we don’t for one minute think that a potential increase in penalties will be the great panacea to stopping wildlife crime (for that to happen there also needs to be a significant change in investigation and enforcement procedures…..it’s pointless having a severe penalty in place if the criminal knows the chances of being caught are virtually nil…but more on that in due course), it is nevertheless an encouraging step, assuming of course that the review committee recommends an increase in penalties. They may not – see here for our previous comments on the membership of this review committee, which inexplicably includes the owner of a game-shooting estate.

This is where you come in. There is an opportunity for you to share your views with the review committee by answering a simple questionnaire that includes some carefully-thought out questions. The deadline for responding is two weeks today (21st November 2014) and the questionnaire can be filled in on-line and emailed to the committee. Please click here to download.

This is an excellent opportunity to have your say and perhaps have some influence on future wildlife crime sentencing options. Although the review is only applicable to sentencing options in Scotland, you do not have to live in Scotland to participate – it’s open to anyone from anywhere. And who knows, if improvements are made in the Scottish system then it provides more leverage for calls to do a similar review of wildlife crime penalties in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The review committee is due to report its findings (and recommendations) early in the New Year.

What we learned from last week’s RACCE mtg on wildlife crime

RACCELast Wednesday, the Scottish Government’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee (RACCE) met to hear evidence on wildlife crime from two senior Police Scotland cops and a senior Fiscal from the Crown Office.

We’ve already blogged about what was said during the meeting about that ludicrous Police Scotland press statement on the Ross-shire Massacre (here). Needless to say, we were unimpressed.

But the discussion on that press statement was only a small part of a two-hour hearing. There was plenty of other discussion about various aspects of wildlife crime enforcement in Scotland and we learned a lot. For those of you who were unable to watch the video, the official transcript of the meeting has now been published in full: HERE.

So what did we learn? For a start, we learned that the RACCE Committee is full of very well-informed MSPs. They asked a lot of good questions and in some cases were quite dogged about pushing the Police for a proper answer. What was less impressive was their sometimes ready acceptance of what can only be described as weak and unsubstantiated responses from the Police and the Crown Office. Nevertheless, it was good to see both the Police and COPFS being asked to be accountable for a change – let’s hope we see more of that.

If you haven’t watched the video, we thoroughly recommend you take some time to read the minutes. Here are a few things that caught our attention:

1. In future years, the Government’s annual wildlife crime report will use data from calendar years instead of a mish mash of calendar and financial years, which makes any sort of analysis near impossible. That’s good.

2. Police Scotland are of the view that the wildlife crime figures are “not the tip of the iceberg“. Their view is apparently based on a “feeling” as opposed to hard evidence. Assistant Chief Constable Graham said:

“I do not have the sense that we are dealing with the tip of the iceberg, but I do have a sense that there are undoubtedly crimes that are not reported to the police and therefore go unrecorded. I could not judge what level that is at, but it does not feel as if we are getting only the tip of the iceberg“.

Detective Chief Superintendent Robbie Allan said: “I agree that the numbers are not the tip of the iceberg“.

Unfortunately, the Committee did not question them further on their “feelings” – it would have been interesting to have asked them how they account for the absence of breeding golden eagles and hen harriers on most land that is managed for driven grouse shooting, how they account for entire populations of raptors being constrained from their full distribution potential in prime breeding habitat that just happens to be managed for driven grouse shooting, how they account for all the unoccupied historical breeding sites, many of which just happen to be on driven grouse moors, why the majority of ‘missing’ satellite-tagged raptors are just happening to ‘disappear’ on driven grouse moors, and why most academics who publish on national and international wildlife crime enforcement widely accept that under-reporting is one of the main obstacles in the way of tackling wildlife crime.

Apparently under-reporting is not an issue in Scotland, because “it doesn’t feel that way” to Police Scotland.

3. The Police and SNH will meet monthly, starting in early November, to share information that could lead to the restriction of General Licences on land where wildlife crime is suspected. That’s very good. Although we still maintain that the General Licence restriction is not a restriction at all – it can easily be circumvented by the landowner/sporting agent/gamekeeper by them simply applying for an individual licence – we blogged about this here. The withdrawal of the General Licence is not a restriction at all; its simply a minor inconvenience which will mean the landowner/sporting agent/gamekeeper having to fill in an extra form. That’s it.

4. The admissibility of video evidence was discussed. Apparently it’s all about “proportionality and necessity” and “Police Scotland will not be routinely deploying these tactics“. In other words, The Untouchables are free to carry on as usual.

5. There was some discussion about the training of police wildlife crime officers. We’ll leave this one for now because we intend to examine this subject in greater detail in the near future.

6. Patrick Hughes from COPFS claimed: “The majority of animal welfare cases that we see are reported to us by Police Scotland, although some come from the SSPCA“. Really? That would be staggering. Unfortunately, Mr Hughes was not asked to substantiate this claim with any data. This would be a ripe topic for anyone with a mind to submit an FoI to the Crown Office: _EnquiryPoint@copfs.gsi.gov.uk (take note of the underscore at the start of this email address).

7. The subject of water bailiffs was discussed (pleased to see that some of those MSPs, and/or their advisors, are reading this blog!). We recently blogged about the substantial powers that water bailiffs have, including the power of arrest (see here). These bailiffs are appointed by landowners, to act in the landowners interests, they are not publicly accountable and have only the merest hint of any ‘training’. Why then, is there such opposition to extending the investigatory powers of the SSPCA, which wouldn’t even include the power of arrest, and whose inspectors already use wide powers when investigating animal welfare crimes? Well, according to Police Scotland (who, you’ll remember, objected to the proposed increase of powers to the SSPCA), the water bailiffs’ powers “are not used routinely” and “We do not have experience of water bailiffs who think that they are in a position to apprehend people“. Strange, then, that to ‘qualify’ (term used loosely) as a water bailiff, the candidate is encouraged to sit a test on the contents of the water bailiff training manual, which includes a considerable amount of detail about their powers of search and arrest.

8. Patrick Hughes of the Crown Office confirmed that currently two cases are proceeding under the vicarious liability legislation. According to him, the VL provision is “effective”….because the landowners have told him it is. On that basis, he’ll no doubt believe that raptor poisoning has stopped because Alex Hogg said the SGA had ‘stamped it out’ (see here).

Tomorrow, the Environment Minister will be giving evidence on wildlife crime to the RACCE Committee. You can watch live from 10am HERE.

SGA: “The Ukip of the natural world”

Jim CrumleyThere’s an interesting piece in today’s Courier written by Jim Crumley, discussing the number of raptors killed by wind turbine collision versus illegal persecution (see here for earlier blog post on this issue).

Crumley is no fan of wind farms, but is even less enamoured with the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, who he describes as “The Ukip of the natural world, and with whom I agree about almost nothing at all“.

Read the Courier article here

Visit Jim Crumley’s personal website here

‘Record breaking’ grouse season: but at what cost?

A ‘leading’ sporting agency is predicting that the 2014 Scottish grouse-shooting season will be one of the best for years, with ‘record bags’ being recorded on grouse moors across the country (see here).

It’s unfortunate that the grouse-shooting industry continues to measure a ‘good’ season based on the number of birds that are killed, not on the ‘quality’ of the shooting.

You can only get ‘record’ bags if the grouse are kept at artificially-high densities. That artificial high density is only possible if natural predators are removed (killed) on a massive scale. As we know, this happens on driven grouse moors both legally (e.g. stoats, weasals, corvids, foxes etc) and illegally (e.g. hen harriers, golden eagles, peregrines, buzzards, goshawks etc).

You can look at today’s headline one of two ways. Wouldn’t it be interesting if the names of the ‘record-breaking’ grouse moors were made public, so that their track record on raptor persecution can be cross-referenced?

Of course, the grouse-shooting industry will deny all involvement and/or knowledge of illegal raptor killing. If that was true, then wouldn’t it show that there’s no need to issue licences to kill protected species as the industry seems to be doing very well without them?

Ross-shire Massacre: more on that Police Scotland press release

Brian Etheridge statementA week ago, Police Scotland issued a ludicrous press statement concerning the illegal poisoning of 22 raptors in Ross-shire. They said that they could CONFIRM that the birds “were most likely not targeted deliberately but instead were the victims of pest control measures“.

We’ve blogged quite a bit on that press statement already (see here, here, here, here). Our main issue with it is that the police appear to have ruled out intent (i.e. inferring the birds were accidental victims) before they’ve even identified a suspect. How could they possibly know what the intent was without first having a confession from the poisoner? We also take issue with them citing ’16’ victims instead of 22 victims. It may well be that they only have confirmed poisoning results from 16 of the 22, but to completely ignore the other six birds merely diminishes the scale of this crime.

We are not alone in this view. An article in the North Star quotes the RSPB’s Brian Etheridge (he’s the guy who has worked with the Black Isle red kite population for 19 years and was heavily involved in the discovery of the poisoned birds) as folllows:

“It’s a very stupid statement. That’s almost justifying the killing. It’s like saying that a drunk driver who kills somebody didn’t go out with the intention of killing anyone. He was just drunk and it was an accidental death“.

Last week, we invited blog readers to contact two of the partner agencies involved in this investigation (RSPB Scotland & SSPCA) to formally ask whether they agreed with the content of the Police Scotland statement. The SSPCA is yet to respond, but Ian Thomson, Head of Investigations at RSPB Scotland has issued the following statement:

“The use of poisoned bait, deliberately placed in the open countryside, is an indiscriminate and criminal act, whatever the intention of the perpetrator, and is aggravated in this case by the fact that an illegal chemical was used.

Whether these birds were killed deliberately or otherwise is irrelevant. Someone placed a fast-acting and very toxic poison out in the open, in an area well-known as being frequented by protected birds of prey, including a significant part of the north of Scotland red kite population. The resulting deaths were an entirely predictable result. It is very fortunate that the members of the local community who discovered poisoned birds did not become victims themselves.

The placing of poisoned bait, just a few miles from the popular Tollie red kite feeding station, was not only a reckless attack on local wildlife but also on the local tourist economy.

 I hope this provides clarification of our position”.

END.

Now, while Mr Thomson’s statement doesn’t really answer directly the question he was asked (and to be fair, we’d have been surprised if he had, given that the RSPB has to work in partnership with the police), it is nevertheless very revealing. He specifically mentions poisoned bait – something Police Scotland has so far failed to do, but more importantly, if you read between the lines, it’s pretty obvious that RSPB Scotland isn’t too happy about the Police Scotland statement: “Whether these birds were killed deliberately or otherwise is irrelevant” and “The resulting deaths were entirely predictable“. Indeed.

The Police Scotland statement came in for further scrutiny at the Scottish Government’s Rural Affairs Committee hearing on Wednesday. The session was all about wildlife crime and two senior police officers, as well as a rep from COPFS, gave evidence to what turned out to be an impressively well-informed Committee. We’ll be blogging more on what was said at that hearing in due course, but suffice to say it was extremely illuminating. The official transcript apparently won’t be available until Monday, but in the meantime we thoroughly recommend you watch the video of the hearing (available here).

Malcolm GrahamSo, what was said about the Police Scotland press statement during that hearing? Quite a lot! The discussion on this specific item lasted for 18 minutes (see video 01.20-01.30 and then 01.34-01.42) and those well-informed Committee members clearly expressed their concern about the Police Scotland statement.

The police officers (ACC Malcom Graham, pictured left, and DCS Robbie Allan) tried to defend their position – notably, they didn’t apologise for any of the confusion their statement had caused – but their defence wasn’t very impressive. They did state, clearly, that they hadn’t intended to infer the poisonings were accidental, and they did confirm a criminal investigation was on-going. That was good, but they couldn’t justify why they thought the birds “were most likely not targeted deliberately” and quite surprisingly, they claimed that their partner agencies had been in support of the press release! Here’s part of what Assistant Chief Constable Malcolm Graham had to say:

 “We put out information into the public domain that we thought was going to clarify what we thought our best assessment was, lay behind the intent of the acts that we’re investigating, and from everything that we have done, in combination with a number of other agencies who are active in this field AND WHO SUPPORTED THE PRESS RELEASE THAT WE PUT OUT [Emphasis by RPS], we wanted to say that it didn’t appear that the activity had sought to deliberately target the birds that had been killed“.

We find it very hard to believe, given the formal press statement issued by RSPB Scotland, that they were in any way supportive of the Police Scotland statement. So who were these “other agencies who are active in this field” who “supported the press release“? We’re very interested in this and perhaps Assistant Chief Constable Malcolm Graham would like to be given the opportunity to explain, given how keen on public accountability Police Scotland claim to be. Perhaps he wouldn’t like to explain, but we’ll never know unless we ask. Emails to: ACC.CrimeMCPP@scotland.pnn.police.uk

Ross-shire Massacre: SLE complains about media speculation

A letter has been published in the Herald today, penned by Tim (Kim) Baynes of Scottish Land and Estates:

Speculation around bird of prey deaths has become more hysterical

The announcement by Police Scotland that the 20 raptors found poisoned in March near Conon Bridge were “not deliberately targeted” raises number of serious matters.

Despite the trend of crimes against birds of prey having gone down in the last 3-5 years, particularly by poisoning, the speculation around each case has become more hysterical; the RSPB even tried to link the Conon Bridge incident to grouse moor management. There are now websites and bloggers and organisations involved in police investigations who are not slow to feed information to the media and promote speculation.

This speculation is having a corrosive knock-on effect on many other aspects of land management, severely straining the relationship between land managers and conservation bodies.

This also brings into focus the new measure whereby General Licences to control pest birds may be withdrawn where there is only a suspicion of wildlife crime, rather than it being proven in court.

Any deliberate killing of a bird of prey is illegal and is to be condemned but it is not in anyone’s interests that various activists and organisations can leap to conclusions without any evidence to support their point of view which in turn is afforded political and media credence. It would be a major step forward if government and other interested organisations were to take a lead in ensuring that reckless speculation should be discouraged. If everyone sticks to the facts and works more constructively together then the interests of conservation will be better served.

Tim Baynes,

Scottish Moorland Group,

Scottish Land & Estates,

Stuart House,

Eskmills Business Park,

Musselburgh.

So our Kim wants everyone to “stick to the facts”. His own track record on sticking to facts isn’t very impressive (e.g. see here, here, here).

His latest letter was written in response to Police Scotland’s outrageous announcement last Friday that the illegal poisoning of 22 raptors at Conon Bridge seven months ago was “not deliberately targeted” (see here). That idiotic statement was pure speculation – is Kim complaining about that?

Earlier this year, Jamie McGrigor MSP speculated, during a televised parliamentary debate, that the Ross-shire Massacre could have been the result of accidental food contamination at the Tollie Red Kite feeding station (see here). Did Kim complain about that?

Kim & Co had better batten down the hatches – speculation is bound to be rife when Police Scotland consistently fail to provide timely, and accurate, updates about such appalling crimes.

Understandably, Kim and his mates would probably prefer everyone to just shut up about raptor persecution crimes. It’s a bit too late for that.

Oh, and by the way, Kim, seeing as how you love facts, here’s one: It was twenty two dead raptors at Conon Bridge, not twenty. And here’s another fact: the Government’s 2013 wildlife crime report showed an increase in raptor persecution crimes. And guess what? The 2014 figures will also show an increase, because the ‘Conon Bridge 22’ will be included in those stats.

In other news, tissue sales are set to increase in Musselburgh.

There’s also an article in the Herald, based around the content of Kim’s letter and how he thinks that the speculation has ‘sullied’ the reputation of SLE members (here).

SSPCA consultation responses: the hypocrites laid bare

sspca logoA few days ago, the Scottish Government published (some of) the responses they’d received to their public consultation on whether the SSPCA should be given increased powers to allow them to investigate more wildlife crimes than their current remit allows.

As a quick recap, the SSPCA’s current authorisation (under animal welfare legislation) limits their investigations to cases that involve a live animal in distress. The proposed new powers would also allow them to 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. an illegally-set pole trap). See here for further detail.

Note: the Government’s consultation document stated: ‘The SSPCA has indicated that they would not require, or use, powers to stop and search people or powers to arrest people’. This statement is important, and you’ll see why later in this blog post.

We knew, in the long three-year lead up to the consultation, that certain organisations would object to the new increased powers, so it wasn’t any great surprise to read the majority of the responses, although there were a couple of surprises. Here is a list of which organisations were in support of the new powers, and which were not (NB: the responses of ‘individuals’ are excluded from this analysis).

Those in support:

Buglife, Durham Bird Club, Scottish Badgers, OneKind, RSPB, Scottish Raptor Study Group, Animal Concern Advice Line, Law Society of Scotland, Scottish Wildlife Trust, League Against Cruel Sports, National Trust for Scotland.

Those not in support:

Altnaharra Estate, Glenfalloch Estate, Alvie & Dalraddy Estates, Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, Scottish Land & Estates, Songbird Survival, BASC Scotland, GWCT, Scottish Countryside Alliance, Craigswood Game & Deer Management, Scottish Association for Country Sports, National Working Terrier Federation, NFU Scotland, Bat Conservation Trust, Scotland for Animals, Police Scotland.

Those not expressing an opinion:

COPFS, British Deer Society.

The surprises, for us at least, were the Bat Conservation Trust and Scotland for Animals. We would have predicted both of these organisations to have been in the ‘supportive’ camp. Their explanations (as put forward in their formal responses) are a bit bizarre but there you go.

Anyway, those two anomalies aside, it’s pretty obvious that the huntin’ shootin’ fishin’ brigade, who all claim to be dedicated to stamping out wildlife crime, are united in their opposition to the SSPCA being given more powers to er, help stamp out wildlife crime. Oh, and Police Scotland is also opposed. Between them all, they’ve put forward a number of similar (actually, mostly identical) reasons to explain their opposition. Those reasons include:

  • Accountability (the SSPCA is a charity, not a public body and therefore it’s not publicly accountable);
  • Impartiality (the SSPCA campaigns for a ban on snares so therefore couldn’t possibly remain impartial when investigating crimes involving snaring);
  • There’s apparently no need for “radical new powers” because there has been a “significant reduction” in wildlife crime;
  • Training & competence (SSPCA inspectors don’t undergo the same “rigorous training, selection & vetting” as police officers so they shouldn’t be allowed to undertake criminal investigations);
  • SSPCA inspectors don’t have access to forensics, DNA and fingerprint databases, or the Scottish Intelligence Database, which would compromise their investigations and also compromise any on-going police investigation of which the SSPCA may be unaware);
  • The SSPCA is “already stretched” and couldn’t cope with more investigations;
  • Giving the SSPCA more powers amounts to “un-official policing” and “quasi-policing”;
  • Only the police should investigate crime;
  • Giving them more powers would “destabilise trust” between PAW partners;
  • The SSPCA is “unequipped” to deal with RIP(S)A regulations (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 which puts strict controls on when surveillance operations are permitted and how they are to be conducted. These regulations only apply to public bodies, e.g. police, customs);
  • There may be resistance from the public, who view these powers as a traditional remit of the police;
  • There is concern about whether the SSPCA is subject to the Scottish Crime Reporting Standard;
  • It’s just not fair.

The last reason isn’t explicitly stated in the consultation responses but it’s pretty much the subtext of what is being said.

Now, to the casual observer, many of these explanations may sound reasonable and legitimate. “Yeah, only the police should investigate wildlife crime, not a civilian”, right? Wrong.

hypocrisyWhat all of these huntin’ shootin’ fishin’ organisations (and Police Scotland) conveniently failed to mention was the role, and powers, of the water bailiff.

What’s a water bailiff?

A water bailiff is someone appointed by a District Salmon Fishery Board (DSFB) (or sometimes by Scottish Ministers if a DSFB doesn’t exist in a particular area) to enforce certain national fisheries legislation, amongst other duties, and their remit includes tackling (fish) poaching. Poaching is one of the six national wildlife crime priorities.

There are 41 DSFBs in Scotland, and the members of these Boards are predominantly land owners and/or those who own propriety fishing rights. We’d thoroughly recommend you check out the Board membership lists of some of these DSFBs (using the link above) – there are some familiar names, including certain estate owners, certain estate factors, and certain SLE Directors and representatives! Representatives of other bodies (e.g. SNH, SEPA, National Park Authority) may be invited to join the Boards, but in a non-voting capacity.

The water bailiff is basically appointed to serve the interests of the landowners and fishing rights proprietors. The role of the water bailiff is “virtually that of a policeman”, according to the Water Bailiff training manual. Water bailiffs have statutory powers of entry, search, seizure, and arrest. Yes, you read that correctly – water bailiffs have the authority to arrest someone, and they are also authorised to use handcuffs during the process of arrest. Some may also carry batons!

To become a water bailiff, all you have to do is to read the Water Bailiffs manual and sit a written test based on your knowledge of the training manual. That appears to be it. However, passing this ‘test’ is apparently not a legal requirement; it is simply a policy in the DSFB’s Code of Good Practice.

So, in light of this information, let’s now re-visit the excuses reasons given by the huntin’ fishin’ shootin’ brigade (and Police Scotland) as to why they object to the SSPCA being given wider powers.

  • Accountability. Water bailiffs are accountable to DSFBs, which are not public bodies, in the same way the SSPCA is not a public body. The huntin’ shootin’ fishin’ brigade don’t seem to have a problem with the lack of public accountability of water bailiffs/DSFBs, just with the lack of accountability of the SSPCA. Interesting.
  • Impartiality. Water bailiffs are acting in the interests of landowners and fishing proprietors, who have undeniable vested interests, thus, it can be argued that they are not impartial. The SSPCA may well campaign for a ban on snaring but that hasn’t affected their professional ability to successfully investigate crimes involving the illegal use of snares. Here’s one they did just this week.
  • The proposed new powers for the SSPCA are not “radical” – nowhere near. They’re merely a small extension to the powers the SSPCA have been using (successfully) for over a hundred years. ‘Radical’ powers might include, say, giving them the power of arrest without a warrant, and authorising the use of handcuffs without a warrant. Now that’s radical.
  • There has not been a “significant reduction” in wildlife crime. Far from it.
  • Training & competence. Water bailiffs do not undergo the same “rigorous training, selection and vetting procedures” as police officers, even though they have similar powers to the police, and far greater powers than those of the SSPCA, who, remember, “do not require, or use, powers to stop and search people or powers to arrest people”. Interesting that the huntin’ shootin’ fishin’ brigade (and Police Scotland) don’t object to such a weak training regime for water bailiffs.
  • Water bailiffs don’t have access to forensics, DNA and fingerprint databases, or the Scottish Intelligence Database, which doesn’t appear to compromise their investigations or compromise any on-going police investigation of which the water bailiff may be unaware.
  • The SSPCA does in fact have access to forensics, and this tool is frequently used in badger-baiting and dog-fighting investigations, when animal DNA evidence has been used by them to secure a conviction.
  • If the SSPCA was ‘already stretched’, they probably wouldn’t have offered their services, free of charge to the public purse, to investigate a wider suite of wildlife crimes. How thoughtful, though, of the huntin’ shootin’ fishin’ brigade (as well as Police Scotland) to show their concern for SSPCA officers’ welfare!
  • The role of the water bailiff is arguably “quasi-policing” and “un-official policing” and yet the huntin shootin’ fishin’ brigade (and Police Scotland) don’t seem to have a problem with that.
  • Water bailiffs investigate wildlife crime (well, poaching, which many would argue is more about stealing than anything else) so their argument that (wildlife) crime should just be a police matter presumably means the huntin’ shootin’ fishin’ brigade will be calling for the  withdrawal of water bailiff powers in the very near future.
  • There is no trust between PAW partners to “destabilise”.
  • Water bailiffs are not equipped to comply with the RIP(S)A legislation because DSFBs are NOT public bodies. However, water bailiffs routinely undertake ‘surveillance’ operations, and indeed their training manual explains how to set an ‘ambush’ for suspected poachers! The huntin shootin’ fishin’ brigade don’t seem to have a problem with this.
  • There doesn’t seem to be much (any?) resistance from the public towards water bailiffs enforcing the legislation.
  • Are water bailiffs subject to the Scottish Crime Reporting Standard? We doubt it.

So there you have it. The hypocrisy, and the hypocrites, have been exposed.

We await with great interest the Minister’s decision on increasing the SSPCA’s investigatory powers.

SSPCA Consultation responses now published

sspca logoThe Scottish Government has now published the respsonses to its consultation on whether the SSPCA should be given increased investigatory powers to allow them to investigate a wider suite of wildlife crimes than their current remit allows.

There were 233 responses, although not all of them have been published as some respondents exercised their right to have their response withheld.

There are a lot of responses from ‘individuals’, and although some have exercised their right to remain anonymous, others have allowed their names to be shown. Some of these are hilarious – including one respondent who has the same name as an SGA committee member, and another respondent who has the same name as a (now retired) wildlife crime police officer. Unsurprisingly, both slag off the SSPCA.

There are also responses from organisations with game-shooting interests (GWCT, SLE, SGA etc), as well as from Police Scotland and one now retired sheriff – unsurprisingly, they are un-supportive of the SSPCA being given more powers.

We’ll be analysing all the responses and will blog about this in due course.

In the meantime, pour yourself a cup of coffee and settle yourselves in for some entertaining reading  by checking out the responses for yourselves: HERE.

New five-year hen harrier project launched

A £1.8 million five-year project has been launched, aiming ‘to achieve a secure and sustainable future’ for hen harriers in northern England and parts of southern and eastern Scotland.

Funded by the EU LIFE scheme, this project will include elements of monitoring (at nests and key winter roosts as well as funding a national hen harrier survey in 2016), satellite tagging, habitat management, investigations work (two new RSPB Investigation Officer posts have been funded), community engagement, community consultation and stakeholder engagement.

The project will focus on seven so-called Special Protection Areas (SPAs) designated for breeding hen harriers, two in England and five in Scotland. These are:

Bowland Fells

North Pennine Moors

Glen Tanar

Forest of Clunie

Muirkirk and North Lowther Upland

Langholm-Newcastleton Hills

Glenn App and Galloway Moors

However, given the tiny breeding population in these areas, it’s quite likely that project work will extend in to other areas, too.

RSPB press release here

BBC news article here

It’s good to see that the project is being managed by Blanaid Denman, who led the RSPB’s (award-winning!) Skydancer Project in northern England and did an excellent job of raising awareness about this species’ plunge towards extinction in that region. It’s also good to see that satellite-tagging will play a prominent role – let’s hope the RSPB will allow us to follow the movements of the tagged harriers and that they’ll publicise the locations of where the birds’ transmitters suddenly cease (which of course is bound to happen), unlike Natural England who have failed miserably in this respect for the last 12 years. Given that the RSPB recently published the last known locations of Bowland harriers Sky and Hope, who ‘disappeared’ on a grouse moor in Lancashire last month (see here), we’re optimistic that this information will again be forthcoming with the newly tagged birds.

We were particularly interested in the BBC’s report about this new project (see link above). That article includes the following statement:

‘The birds continue to face threats. In June 2014 two orphaned hen harrier chicks were hand-reared by wildlife experts after the female bird was illegally shot in East Ayrshire‘.

Why is that statement interesting? Well, because at the time of this harrier’s death, Police Scotland refused to reveal the cause of death (see here). They said:

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

Wonder how their ‘investigation’ is going, and whether they’ve yet worked out why this harrier was found shot on a grouse moor? Idiots.

Talking of investigations in to illegally-killed hen harriers, wonder how this one is coming along – a hen harrier found shot dead on an Aberdeenshire grouse moor a year ago.

Or how about this one? The alleged ‘coordinated hunting’ of a male hen harrier on another Aberdeenshire grouse moor, nearly 18 months ago.

Or how about this one? The allegation that ‘someone’ killed a hen harrier ‘somewhere’ in Aberdeenshire in June 2013. This case was passed to the Crown Office ten months ago….no news since.

The press release about this new EU-funded project is pretty much focused on ‘let’s get everyone working together to help our hen harriers’. Whilst that’s a noble aim (and we sincerely wish Blanaid and her team the best of luck with that), it’s probably not going to happen. The killing will continue, the killers will deny all knowledge and they’ll more than likely get away with it. Where this project may have a greater impact is the bringing forward of more evidence of the killing; not that more evidence is needed – we all know it’s happening and where it’s happening. But more evidence from more satellite tags and more evidence from more investigators on the ground. That evidence can only add to the current evidence base, and to the growing anger, and will help us to apply more pressure on the politicians who have the ultimate responsibility for protecting these birds.

Hen harrier photo by Gordon Langsbury

CEH scientist claims gamekeepers “protect” hen harriers & mountain hares

BBC radio 4 logoThere was a fascinating discussion on the BBC’s Shared Planet programme this morning. It was all about conflict resolution, with a particular focus on the hen harrier ‘problem’.

We were told that to achieve conflict resolution, trust was needed on all sides. That’s a complete non-starter then, when those with a vested interest in killing harriers (and other protected raptor species such as golden eagles, white-tailed eagles, red kites, buzzards, goshawks, peregrines etc) consistently deny the extent of illegal killing and claim not to know who’s doing it. It’s quite hard to trust a liar.

Interviewees included Dr Juliette Young (CEH Edinburgh), who spoke about how the media often portrays ‘actors’ (stakeholders) in a negative light. She said:

“Gamekeepers do sometimes feel like they’re the bad guys in all this when actually, it’s often thanks to their management of moorlands that we do have these absolutely fantastic species on moorlands, like hen harriers, like mountain hares; these species that are iconic, and that their [gamekeepers] management helps to protect“.

Wow, did she actually just say that? Perhaps she should read this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this as taster articles on how well gamekeepers are “protecting” hen harriers, and  this, this and this as taster articles on how well gamekeepers are “protecting” mountain hares.

Also interviewed was Simon Lester, Head Gamekeeper at Langholm. When asked how he would like to see the hen harrier ‘problem’ resolved, he said:

“The real key to solving this problem is to endorse the quota brood management system. I wouldn’t like to see a countryside devoid of raptors but I think there has to be a level of when is enough enough?“

So, with only four pairs of nesting hen harriers in England this year (when there should be 300+), and a 20% decline in the Scottish hen harrier population, with an almost complete absence of breeding harriers on Scottish grouse moors, Mr Lester thinks that ‘removing’ hen harriers (from grouse moors) is the solution. How about gamekeepers stop illegally killing them? Why not use diversionary feeding, which has proven successful at Langholm? Why is that not the solution?

Lester also went on to trot out his old blind prejudice about buzzards. He said, when asked about how to get a conflict resolution:

“The first big thing is to put in mechanisms where you can use different management tools to get there. So diversionary feeding would be one, quota system for harriers, but possibly with buzzards a lethal option“.

Interesting that his Victorian attitude towards buzzards hasn’t changed over the years, despite the results of a recent three-year study, at Langholm, that suggested buzzards aren’t really that fussed about taking grouse (see here).

You can listen to the programme here.