Category: Opinion

Landowners & gamekeepers claim ‘misrepresentation’ on BBC’s The One Show

One-Show-smallScottish Land and Estates and the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association have written a letter of complaint to the BBC, claiming ‘misrepresentation’ on The One Show programme.

The programme (see here and here) included a feature on golden eagle persecution and during a studio interview, the RSPB’s Stuart Benn laid the blame firmly at the door of gamekeepers on Scottish grouse moors.

Doug McAdam, Chief Exec of Scottish Land & Estates, took great exception to that statement and wrote a hilarious letter of complaint, on behalf of SLE and SGA, to The One Show’s executive editor, Sandy Smith.

Here is his letter: SLE SGA complaint about BBC One Show

According to dear old Doug, there have only been four dead golden eagles found since 2010 and no charges [for these deaths] have been brought against anyone involved in grouse moor management. Conveniently, he failed to include the other known incidents of dead raptors turning up on grouse moors since 2010 (including white-tailed eagles, red kites, hen harriers, buzzards, short-eared owls, sparrowhawks, peregrines, kestrels), or the critically-injured golden eagle found shot and left to die on a grouse moor, or indeed the satellite-tagged raptors (particularly golden eagles and hen harriers) who have all gone ‘missing’ after their last known signal was received from, er, a grouse moor. There may well be more of these ‘missing’ birds but of course we’re no longer allowed to hear about them after the introduction of the new PAW Scotland ‘protocol’ that aims to keep these incidents away from the public’s gaze (see here).

Apart from trying to play down the extent of persecution incidents on grouse moors, and inferring that a lack of criminal convictions is a good indicator that gamekeepers are not involved with the illegal killing of golden eagles on grouse moors, Doug goes on to emphasise the SLE’s involvement with PAW Scotland, as though membership of that ‘partnership’ should be a measure of good behaviour. We’ve all seen how effective these ‘partnerships’ can be, following the near-extinction of breeding hen harriers on English grouse moors during the six-year Hen Harrier Dialogue ‘partnership’ designed to resolve the conflict. Indeed, three raptor conservation organisations have now resigned from that particular ‘partnership’ because they recognised it could be used as a convenient political cover by certain organisations with grouse-shooting interests.

Doug makes an astonishing claim about the PAW Scotland partnership: “Our combined efforts with the police, rural communities, the RSPB and over 120 other relevant stakeholders have been universally acknowledged as a key factor in reducing the number of raptor persecution incidents“.

Talk about misleading! For a start, there are not 120 ‘relevant stakeholders’ in relation to addressing raptor persecution. Many of the stakeholders have absolutely no involvement in directly addressing raptor persecution – they are there to specifically address other types of wildlife crime such as poaching, theft of freshwater pearl mussels, bat persecution and badger persecution.

Secondly, where does this notion come from that work by PAW Scotland has been ‘universally acknowledged as a key factor in reducing the number of raptor persecution incidents’? Has it been ‘universally acknowledged’? We don’t think PAW Scotland has had any demonstrable impact whatsoever on the number of raptor persecution incidents – where’s the evidence? Perhaps by ‘universal’ he means those with a vested interest in having people think that illegal raptor persecution is being dealt with effectively (e.g. the police, SNH, Scottish Government, SLE, SGA etc etc).

Doug finishes by saying, “Owners of moorland estates all over Scotland look after golden eagles” (ahem) and he invites Sandy Smith to visit a grouse moor “to find out for yourself the valuable conservation measures being implemented“. Let’s hope Sandy takes him up on his offer. Ooh, which grouse moor to choose? We could give Sandy quite a few suggestions….

Sandy Smith responded with a letter of his own: One Show’s reply to SLE

He says he’s sent an email to all One Show staff and suppliers “asking them to ensure they don’t make assumptions about gamekeepers based on out of date or inaccurate assumptions“.

Interestingly, Sandy Smith was the former executive editor of Panorama – a programme recognised for its investigative journalism and an ability to differentiate between fact and PR. Let’s hope he’s taken those qualities with him to The One Show.

We’ve sent a letter to Sandy, giving him the URL of this blog, to ensure his staff are kept up to date and are not basing their work on inaccurate assumptions (spin). You may wish to do the same – send your email, marked for the attention of Sandy Smith, to: TheOneShowEmails@bbc.co.uk

If you think grouse moor owners and their gamekeepers need to be held to account for their activities, please sign this e-petition and share it with your friends and colleagues: SIGN HERE.

Here’s a photo showing how well golden eagles are looked after on some Scottish grouse moors. This one was found critically injured on Buccleuch Estate last aututmn – he had been shot and left to die, although it is not known on whose land he was shot. He is currently recuperating with the SSPCA after undergoing life-saving surgery. Needless to say, nobody has been charged for this crime.

The shot golden eagle undergoing emergency surgery

Northern England Raptor Forum walks out of Hen Harrier Dialogue process

In the last few days, many of us have been flabbergasted (or not) at the flat denials from several game-shooting industry representatives about the issue of illegal raptor persecution. Despite years, no, decades, of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, these industry leaders still refuse to accept the reality.

 In a way it’s good that they continue to display such open indifference because by doing so an increasingly-aware public are given an opportunity to see what the rest of us have been seeing for years. In the end, we firmly believe it will be the strength of public opinion that forces a change and finally puts an end to the decades of illegal killing. Nevertheless, as laughable as the industry’s excuses and explanations are, it is still frustrating to hear them because you know that as long as that’s what the leaders are thinking then the criminals within that sector won’t be inclined to stop the persecution.

nerf logo3So, take that sense of frustration you felt when you heard the latest denials, and multiply that by six years, and then add in the fact that over the same period the hen harrier breeding population has been reduced to a single pair in England, and it will come as no surprise to learn that the Northern England Raptor Forum (NERF) has resigned from the Hen Harrier Dialogue process. Indeed, you might well ask what took them so long!

For those who don’t know what the Hen Harrier Dialogue process is, you can read about it here. NERF, representing a suite of dedicated raptor study groups in northern England, has been involved in the Dialogue since day one, back in June 2006. Last summer, the RSPB were the first group to walk away from the process. Now NERF have walked, as of January 31st 2013. We understand that the Hawk and Owl Trust, the only other pro-raptor partner in the process, is still in it, for now at least.

Here are some excerpts from a NERF letter that leave no room to doubt their reasons for walking out:

Following the last meeting in June 2012, NERF members undertook a wide-ranging internal debate about continuing our involvement with the Hen Harrier Dialogue. At the conclusion of our discussions NERF members unanimously elected to resign from the Dialogue process with immediate effect. This decision has not been undertaken lightly. We believe that far from assisting the re-establishment of a viable and self-sustaining healthy English population of Hen Harriers that is free and able to share wild open spaces unmolested with red grouse the evidence reveals that the exact opposite has been achieved.

Despite many years of attempting to seek a resolution to the perceived conflict of interest between commercial driven grouse shooting and Hen Harriers, NERF can find no evidence of any progress towards that goal. Indeed the opposite is the case. In 2006 46 young fledged, four years later only 23 young fledged and in 2012 just one pair successfully reared young. Even the higher figure masks the reality that the successes are almost invariably located on the United Utilities Estate in Bowland or from nests that were guarded around the clock by volunteers. It should also be remembered that there is sufficient habitat in England to support 332 pairs. No matter how optimistic the analysis of the intervening years, this attempt at conflict resolution, from the Hen Harrier’s perspective, can only be judged to be a resounding failure.

It is the opinion of NERF members that our continued participation in the Dialogue lends an air of respectability to a process that is fundamentally flawed. The Dialogue was tasked with seeking conflict resolution to what is a shameful situation where a species is being illegally persecuted to oblivion simply because it is perceived to threaten the sporting interests of a very small minority of individuals. To achieve the required outcome NERF accepted that there needed to be compromise. However despite our best efforts we can find no evidence that some of those organisations that represent the grouse shooting industry have either a genuine intention to accept anything other than a zero upland population or the ability to guarantee that the grouse moor managers they represent will implement any strategy agreed through the Dialogue.

There is ample evidence to show this to be the case:

  • The English Hen Harrier population is so perilously low that there is no longer any conflict with commercial driven grouse shooting and yet the birds continue to be persecuted, as evidenced by the recent death of ‘Bowland Betty’ in the Yorkshire Dales.
  • The continued public denial by grouse moor managers that persecution is widespread within the industry gives NERF members no reason to believe that participation of the industry representatives is anything other than a political gesture intended to divert attention away from that very persecution being undertaken by their members.
  • The scientific modelling developed specifically to aid the search for a resolution was originally rejected by the shooting community and further modelling was undertaken at their behest. The resultant data emphatically show that two pairs of Hen Harriers can be accommodated on 5,000 acres without any commercial impact. Indeed the same data reports that the impact by three pairs is insignificant. This scientifically based model was rejected with a counter offer of one pair per 10,000 acres. This offer represents a 75% shift away from the science and it is difficult to see it as anything other than yet one more delaying tactic.
  • In an effort to reduce the potential impact of grouse chick predation diversionary feeding was trialled and shown to work. The proposed expansion to the scheme was rejected by several of the shooting organisations for no discernible reason. Once again the search for a solution was stalled.
  • The proposal to introduce a brood capture, cage and release scheme was always going to be unpalatable to raptor workers; nonetheless NERF was prepared to leave the proposal on the table for discussion once the population had returned to ‘carrying capacity’. Years after the scheme was initially proposed and with no actual progress being made the National Gamekeepers Organisation announced in 2012, the same year that only one pair nested successfully in England, that the scheme may need to be implemented as soon as two pairs, or one polygamous male and two females, attempt to breed on the same ground. Thus the brood capture, cage and release programme would be implemented when the English population reached three individuals, less than 0.5% of the ‘carrying capacity’ of 332 pairs. This is completely unacceptable not only to conservationists but to all right-minded people. Any future discussions in respect of that scheme were halted with that single statement. More years lost in a pointless discussion, but perhaps that was the intention.

NERF is no longer willing to have its reputation tarnished by involvement with a process that is, in our opinion, being deliberately frustrated by organisations that have failed to demonstrate any willingness to find a solution to what is after all an irrational and outdated belief that Hen Harrier numbers must be subjected to lethal control for the benefit of the grouse shooting industry.

Some comments on last night’s ‘Inside Out’ programme on hen harrier persecution

So, what did we learn from last night’s Inside Out programme on the illegal persecution of hen harriers?

According to Martin Gillibrand, the Moorland Association’s secretary, there is ‘no evidence’ that gamekeepers have been involved in hen harrier persecution, and the cause of their near extinction as a breeding species in England is “as a result of some very bad springs, breeding productivity has fallen off and the numbers have gone down“. Ah, so climate change is the real problem then. So if we all turn down our central heating and get our lofts insulated the hen harriers will be ok. It’s the same old story – give any explanation for the demise of the hen harrier except for the most obvious one.

Funny that he didn’t mention an earlier Moorland Association statement, given as written evidence during the recent parliamentary audit on wildlife crime (see here) –

“Until a full set of special rules allowing the positive management of hen harriers breeding on grouse moors is forthcoming from the Environment Council’s Hen Harrier Dialogue, moorland owners are within their rights and the law to deter the birds from settling on their moors to breed.”

Nor did he mention previous correspondence between the Moorland Association and DEFRA minister [grouse moor owner] Richard Benyon, discussing the possibility of derogations from international law that would allow for the legal ‘management’ of hen harriers (see here).

What else did we learn? Well, as predicted, the recent introduction of vicarious liability legislation in Scotland was touted as the solution to end raptor persecution. Unsurprisingly, this view was presented by Des Thompson of SNH – an organisation with a vested interest in making everyone believe that they’re dealing with the on-going (59 years and counting) problem of illegal raptor persecution. According to Des Thompson:

“We are seeing some real signs of success. There are indications now that the recorded incidents of poisoned birds of prey is declining“.

He went on: “We were despairing in Scotland a couple of years ago but things have got a lot better“.

Have they? Yes, the number of recorded poisoning incidents has dropped, but does that mean poisoning has dropped, or poisoning is still going on but it’s now better hidden, or that recorded poisoning incidents have dropped because other methods of persecution are now being employed? Here are three examples that suggest things have not ‘got better’ (see here, here and here).

It’s interesting that SNH should interpret the drop in recorded poisoning incidents as a ‘success’, when the only true measure of success will be if raptor populations (especially hen harrier and golden eagle) recover. If they do recover, it will take several years to see it. Sorry, but to suggest at this early stage that vicarious liability has been a ‘success’ is utter rubbish – it’s a statement with more spin than a Zanussi.

Yesterday we blogged about how vicarious liability isn’t the solution to solving the issue of illegal raptor persecution, mainly because the crux of the vicarious liability concept is that the individual criminal first has to be identified before his/her employer can be charged under the new legislation. However, this was written from a Scottish perspective, where evidence such as covert video surveillance (identifying an individual actually committing the crime) is so often banned as admissable evidence in court. However, in England, this type of evidence is frequently accepted in court and has been used very successfully to convict criminal gamekeepers. So, in this context, vicarious liability, if it was to be introduced in England, might just work.

If you missed last night’s programme you can watch it on iPlayer (here) for a limited period.

We’ll be blogging later today about the latest development from the Hen Harrier Dialogue…

For anagram fans: A SAD MORONS COALITION / MOORLAND ASSOCIATION

‘No evidence’ of gamekeepers persecuting hen harriers, says Moorland Association

As a prelude to this evening’s programme about the illegal persecution of hen harriers, there was a short piece on BBC Radio Newcastle this morning.

In an astonishing interview, the secretary of the Moorland Association (the representative body of grouse moor owners) suggests that there is ‘no evidence’ of gamekeepers being involved with the illegal persecution of hen harriers.

Fortunately, Guy Shorrock of the RSPB’s Investigations Team was on-hand to provide an eloquent and well-informed rebuttal.

It’s remarkable that the Moorland Association are still in denial, even though we’re all well aware that this species is on the very brink of becoming extinct as a breeding species in England. It’s especially remarkable given that the Moorland Association have been party to the Hen Harrier Dialogue – the discussion process set up specifically to find ways of addressing the conflict between grouse moor management and hen harriers (now in its 7th year). We’ll be blogging about the latest news from the Hen Harrier Dialogue shortly – and given the Moorland Association’s flat denial that hen harrier persecution exists, you won’t be surprised to find out the latest development…

Meanwhile, listen to this morning’s radio interview (here, starts at 1.25.30 and ends at 1.31.06) and be sure to watch the tv programme this evening (here).

Photograph below shows a hen harrier being removed from an illegally-set trap on a Scottish grouse moor in 2010. This bird was lucky – he survived. Nobody was prosecuted for setting the illegal trap.

Hen harrier being removed from illegal trap on Moy Estate

Convicted gamekeeper has membership ‘suspended’

filesLast week we blogged about North Yorks gamekeeper Shaun Leslie Allanson, who was convicted of committing wildlife crimes on the Blansby Park Estate (see here). We wondered at the time whether Allanson was a member of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation (NGO), the English/Welsh equivalent of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association.

Well, it turns out that he was indeed a member at the time he commited those offences.

In a very welcome turn of events, the NGO have issued a public statement about Allanson (see here). Following his conviction, they immediately ‘suspended’ his NGO membership. Now, this isn’t as good as immediately booting him out and banning him from ever re-joining the organisation, but it is a good start.

According to the NGO’s disciplinary procedure (see here), Allanson will remain suspended until the NGO’s National Committee have a chance to meet and discuss the details of his case, and based on that meeting he will either be expelled or re-admitted. We will watch with interest to see what decision they make.

The NGO deserve some credit here. Regular blog followers will know that after previous cases of convicted gamekeepers we have struggled to get the relevant ‘professional body’ (i.e. the NGO or the SGA) to make any public comment at all. On this occasion though, the NGO took very swift public action without us having to spend weeks badgering them to do so. We blogged quite recently about the need for greater leadership amongst the game-shooting bodies and it looks as though the message has finally got through, to the NGO at least. They don’t often give us cause to congratulate them but this time they have. Well done to them.

Scottish gamekeepers ‘striving to be the best in Europe’

Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association Chairman Alex Hogg has published his latest blog today. It’s a classic.

“It gives me great pride to know that we, as professional wildlife managers, are striving to be the best in Europe. Nowhere else will you find such a rich diversity in such a small area. This is down to Keepers protecting Scotland’s flora and fauna“.

Unfortunately he doesn’t specify what they are striving to be the best at.

He also mentions a recent police wildlife conference held in Galashiels, and suggests that the large turn-out “showed that Keepers are keen to gather information and the take-up on courses such as snaring and deer competence is very high“.

That’s interesting, because according to a recent parliamentary question and answer session, less than one third of the snaring operators in Scotland have attended the compulsory two-hour snaring course required to comply with new regulations that begin on 1st April 2013. As Libby Anderson of OneKind put so succinctly:

“1,376 snare users have attended, out of a shooting industry estimate of 5,000 snare operators. Will the remaining 3,624 be trained by 1st April, given that it has taken over two years to train the first third?”

Sounds like the courts may be busy this year if visitors to the countryside notice any snares that do not have an ID tag attached (the ID tag is issued by the police to the individual snare user, but only if the user can produce a certificate to show completion of an approved snaring training course). If you spot a snare in use in Scotland after 1st April, check to see whether it’s got an ID tag attached. If it hasn’t, report it to the police!

He also mentions ‘the fact that Keepers must read the conditions of the General Licence before trapping any crows“. That’s not actually a true ‘fact’, Alex. SNH, in their wisdom, decided to drop the requirement that the GLs must be ‘read’ – instead, the user must simply ‘understand’. This change was the result of lobbying from a number of game-shooting organisations, who claimed that the old requirement (to read the conditions) was discriminatory against anyone who couldn’t read. We suspect the real reason was to exploit some sort of legal loophole to avoid a future conviction for misuse, but that remains to be seen.

Anyway, the latest Hogg blog can be read here – we only wish he’d write more frequently….

wildlife estates scotland initiative: credible or crap?

untitled1There’s been a bit of a buzz on Twitter this evening about the Scottish Land and Estates-led initiative, Wildlife Estates Scotland. Apparently the accreditation scheme was launched today by Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse and SNH Chairman Andrew Thin. Nothing yet on the Scottish Land and Estates website but no doubt they’ll be making a big song and dance about it in the coming days.

Hmm. So what do we know about this grand scheme? We blogged about it in 2011 (see here).

We know the main objective is “to demonstrate unequivocally that estates and farms across Scotland are producers of integrated solutions for positive land management and biodiversity“. (Producers of integrated solutions? Christ, who writes this stuff?)

We know that the scheme was first mooted at the end of 2010, just when it looked like the Scottish Government might have been persuaded to endorse an estate-licensing scheme to combat the continuing problem of illegal raptor persecution, as part of the WANE Bill discussions. Coincidental timing? Probably not. The game-shooting industry were up against the ropes and recognised they had to do something to prevent an estate-licensing scheme being forced upon them. Da-da! The Wildlife Estates Initiative was born and the Scottish Government dropped any thoughts of an estate-licensing scheme, for the time being at least.

Since then it has been run as a pilot scheme on a few named (safe) estates in Scotland (see here for the SLE aims and objectives) and now, apparently, it’s being rolled out for other estates to sign up to.

We also know that the WES already has “250 signed up members, from small and medium-sized farms, up to large estates and reserves” (see SLE briefing note here).

It could be a credible scheme, but some answers need to be provided before anyone believes it:

1. Who is going to undertake the biodiversity evaluation of these signed-up estates to ascertain whether they merit accreditation as a Wildlife Estate Scotland?

2. Will the evaluator(s) be an independent body or an organisation with close links to the game-shooting fraternity?

3. Who are the ‘250 signed up members’? Unless the names of these 250 are released for public scrutiny, then this scheme has zero credibility. There needs to be 100% transparency for anyone to take this seriously. Without it, it looks like just another failed attempt at making the game-shooting industry look like they’re cleaning up their act (a bit like this).

We look forward to Scottish Land and Estates publishing the details of the 250 signed up members in due course and we especially look forward to scrutinising each and every one of them.

UPDATE 21st Feb: Scottish Land & Estates have put out a press statement about their ‘conservation crusade’ here.

Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse’s full statement can be read here.

Clam traps: SNH in the last chance saloon

snh_logoOn Tuesday we blogged about SNH’s response to our concerns over the on-going clam trap fiasco (see here). We said we would outline what we thought the next step should be. Here are our thoughts:

There are two main issues. The first one is that the consultation process was flawed. It did not meet the standard required by the Scottish Government’s ‘Consultation Good Practice Guide’, which is applicable to an agency like SNH (see here).

For example, consultations should allow “at least 12 weeks to respond”. This particular consultation opened on October 1st 2012 and closed on November 9th 2012, thus only allowing 5.5 weeks in which to respond. In addition, in order to be transparent, SNH should have provided feedback on how each and every point raised during the consultation was treated. As far as we can tell, this has not taken place. Instead, it appears that the majority of points raised have been ignored (in terms of the final outcome of the consultation). In which case it could be argued that the whole consultation was pointless; SNH had already decided what they were going to do, regardless of the majority view of respondents, and they were just going through the motions of holding a public consultation to appease those of us who might object to their proposals.

The second main issue is the basis of evidence that SNH used to approve the use of clam-type traps. According to SNH, the consultation did not provide any evidence that clam-type traps were unsafe for target and/or non-target species, or a threat to protected species. Instead, they argued that as clam-type traps had previously been in use (albeit probably illegally!) it would be “disproportionate to ban their use outright”. There are several problems with this argument.

First of all, it is clear that no independent testing has taken place to provide evidence that these traps are safe. If SNH are using the ‘lack of available evidence’ to show that the traps are unsafe, then surely that mandate should also apply to demonstrate that the traps are safe before they are authorised for use? Is there any evidence to show that the traps have no welfare or lethal impacts to either target or non target species, which may include protected species, to justify their use? If there is evidence, it has not been made available to the public, in which case, SNH should have applied the precautionary principle and not authorised these traps until such time as independent testing shows they pose no threat to animal welfare as well as no impact on non-target species, some of which may be protected species.

Secondly, SNH have argued that by restricting the type of bait for these traps (bread and eggs only), they have “minimised the risk to non-target species”. Whilst this may be applicable to raptors, it certainly does not minimise the risk to other protected, non-target species, including the pine marten, a species that loves to eat eggs! According to SNH’s own website, it is an offence to intentionally or recklessly capture a pine marten unless you have a special licence to do so (see here). So why authorise a trap that, depending on its location, is highly likely to capture a pine marten?!

Thirdly, SNH said that it would be “disproportionate to ban their [the traps] use outright”. But, if you read the responses to the consultation, the majority of respondents were not asking for an ‘outright ban’ – they were asking for independent testing prior to the traps being authorised. Furthermore, there are alternative traps (Larsen trap) that could be used if clam-type traps were not approved this year or until such time as a trial showed that they are safe. So for SNH to say that not approving their use is ‘disproportionate’ is overstating the reason for approving the use of these traps.

So, where to go from here? In the first instance, we propose that people contact SNH and ask them to provide evidence to show that clam-type traps have no welfare or lethal impacts on either target or non-target species, and if they can’t provide such evidence then they should pull the clam-type trap from the General Licences until such time as that evidence is available.

This is SNH’s last chance to act. If the evidence is not forthcoming and SNH still refuse to withdraw the clam-type trap from the General Licences, then the next step would be to go to the Ombudsman and ask whether SNH has carried out this consultation appropriately.

If that fails, then we think there is a very strong case for making a formal complaint against SNH to the EU, for failing to protect the very species that they have a statutory duty to protect. This complaint wouldn’t just be limited to the clam-type trap issue – it would cover other traps that SNH have authorised, including crow-cage traps, without addressing the legitimate concerns about their use. These concerns have been raised over and over again during the last few years (see the current and previous consultation responses of groups such as RSPB, SRSGs and OneKind for examples) and SNH has consistently ignored them. They may argue that they’re going to address these concerns in their proposed ‘Code of Practice’ that they say they will develop ‘early this year’. The problem with that is it has not been made clear whether they will actually address all the concerns, and even if they do, whether this ‘Code of Practice’ will be a voluntary code (in which case it’ll be worthless) or whether breaking this code will be considered a formal breach of the conditions of the General Licence (and therefore should result in a prosecution).

It’s time to get serious. Please consider emailing SNH. It only takes a minute. The complaint should go right to the top again: Ian Jardine, (Chief Executive SNH) – ian.jardine@snh.gov.uk

If you’re not sure what to write, either copy the blog URL into the body an email, or you could use the following text as a guide – simply cut and paste or adapt it to your own words:

Dear Dr Jardine,

Re: the recent SNH consultation which led to the authorisation of clam-type traps in the 2013 Open General Licences.

Please can you provide the evidence you have used to demonstrate that clam-type traps have no welfare or lethal impacts to target or non-target species. If the evidence is unavailable, please consider withdrawing the use of clam-type traps from the Open General Licences until such time as independent and rigorously tested evidence is available.

Thanks.

Latest on SNH clam trap fiasco

snh_logoThe SNH clam trap fiasco continues. First, here’s a quick re-cap on their controversial decision to authorise the use of clam-type traps in the 2013 Open General Licences:

In October 2012, SNH announced that they would undertake a public consultation about the use of clam-type traps in Scotland (see here).

In early December 2012, following the public consultation, SNH announced that they would allow the use of clam-type traps on the Open General Licences beginning 1st January 2013 (see here). We questioned whether SNH had favoured the views of game-shooting lobby and ignored the views of the conservationists, and we asked to see the full set of consultation responses.

In mid-December 2012, SNH’s decision to authorise the use of clam traps led to several parliamentary questions. The questions can be read here, and the Environment Minister’s responses can be read here. The responses suggested that the Scottish Government didn’t see anything wrong with the decision to authorise clam-type trap use.

Meanwhile, also in mid-December 2012, at least two organisations (SSPCA and RSPB) asked SNH to reconsider their decision to approve the use of clam-type traps (see here).

In late December 2012, we blogged about how to recognise a clam trap being used lawfully and one being used unlawfully (see here).

In late December, SNH released the full set of consultation responses for scrutiny. In early January, we blogged about our analysis of these responses and concluded that SNH had not been truthful when they’d said that the “majority of consultees supported the proposed amendments” and that their decision to authorise the use of clam traps was based on “the feedback received“. In fact, our analysis showed that more than twice as many respondents were against the use of clam traps prior to independent testing than those who were supportive of their use! (see here). We encouraged people to contact SNH Chief Executive Ian Jardine to ask for an explanation.

So, the latest update is that SNH have now responded. The following generic letter was sent out in mid-January by one of Ian Jardine’s underlings, Nick Halfhide, Head of Operations:

“I am sorry that you disagree with the decision that we have taken to include clam-type traps in the 2013 General Licences. We are aware of the potential risks to non-target species from these, as with other licensed traps, but at the same time we recognise the legitimate needs of the land management community to control certain bird species.

In balancing the needs of land managers and the risk to non-target species, we sought to gather evidence through the recent public consultation to inform our decision making. This produced much valid opinion but little solid evidence. We therefore formed the view that as these traps are already in use, and have been for some time, it would be disproportionate to ban their use outright.

Instead, we decided to take steps to minimise the risk to non-target species by placing a special condition that eggs or bread are the only permitted baits for use with Larsen mate and Larsen pod traps. In addition we intend to further test these traps this year which will be both rigorous and independent. If evidence does come to light that they pose unacceptable risks then any General Licence permitting their use could be revoked at any time.

I also understand your concerns over the potential misuse of all traps permitted under General Licences and this is something that we take very seriously. These issues are of course not new and we are aware of the recent misuse of traps to target birds of prey and this is something we are very keen to address.

We believe that one important step will be to develop a Code of Practice with the industry and key stakeholders – this document would provide clarity on design and use of traps to ensure that there is a clear understanding and agreement as to when and how they can be used. This should help to maximise their effectiveness in addressing the legitimate needs of users whilst minimising risk in relation to animal welfare, conservation and potential for misuse. We aim to take this forward early this year.

Finally, in relation to views received during the formal consultation last year, I agree that the majority of respondents did not favour the use of clam traps but were in favour of clarifying which traps could be used under General Licence. The commentary on this point in paragraph 2 of section 5 of Annex 1 in the letter to consultees dated 4 December 2012 is ambiguous and thus confusing, for which I apologise.

Yours sincerely

Nick Halfhide

Head of Operations”

Having considered this response for a few weeks, we have now decided on the next course of action. We think the SNH response is unsatisfactory in that it still does not address the fundamental problem behind their decision to authorise the use of clam-type traps; that is, SNH’s decision not to carry out independent testing prior to authorising clam trap use. A further blog entry will explain what we can do about it….

New raptor crime reporting protocols – but for whose benefit?

Two new raptor crime reporting protocols have just been published on the PAW Scotland website. One covers the ‘collection of evidence for incidents of raptor crime’ and the other is ‘guidance for people who lose contact with satellite-tagged birds’.

Both protocols come from the Scottish Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (SRPPDG). This group was established in 2009 as a sub-group of PAW Scotland and these protocols are the first ‘deliveries’ from the group. Before discussing each protocol in turn, it’s worth bearing in mind which organisations make up the SRPPDG, because then you’ll understand why landowner appeasement and suppression of news reports seem to be prominent elements in the protocols.

The current make-up of the SRPPDG is as follows:

Scottish Land & Estates (SLE), Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association (SGA), Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT), British Association for Shooting & Conservation (BASC), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH), National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU), Scottish Police, Scottish Government, Science & Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA), RSPB, Scottish Raptor Study Groups (SRSGs).

Let’s start with the ‘Collection of evidence for incidents of raptor crime’ protocol. You can read it here. This protocol is not just about the ‘collection of evidence’ – importantly, it’s also about how to report a raptor crime.

Incredibly, this protocol suggests that all suspected incidents of raptor crime ‘MUST’ be reported to the police. Now that’s not actually true. If the raptor crime involves a situation where an animal’s welfare is at risk (e.g. a live raptor caught in an illegally-set trap), then the SSPCA have a statutory authority to investigate the incident and report it for consideration for prosecution to the Crown Office. They can do this without needing police assistance – they have a highly experienced Special Investigations Unit to coordinate it. Nowhere in this protocol is that option given as a recommended course of action.

Also missing from the reporting options is a recommendation to report a suspected raptor crime to the RSPB. Now, unlike the SSPCA, the RSPB does not have any statutory authority to investigate. If they are involved, they have to work with one of the statutory authorities. Nevertheless, to exclude them entirely from this protocol is a dangerous business. They, too, have a highly specialised Investigations Unit, whereas some Scottish police forces still don’t even have a full-time wildlife crime officer, even though this was a recommendation made by the Scottish Government about five years ago!

The dead golden eagleWe have seen time and time again instances of suspected raptor crimes that have been reported to the police but the follow-up investigation has left a lot to be desired. Here is just one example from 2010. Also in 2010, the then Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham admitted that police action on wildife crime investigation was “a challenge” (see here). Have things improved since then? Well, if you look at the recent incident of that golden eagle that was found dumped next to an Aberdeenshire lay-by, you could easily argue that things have not improved. The police did not issue a press statement about the illegal killing of that eagle, and nor did they even apply for a search warrant to search the land, buildings and vehicles where the bird was ‘downed’ for several hours before it was moved and dumped in the lay-by. The only reason the public found out about that incident was because the RSPB issued a press release 4.5 months after the incident (see here), perhaps in exasperation that the police hadn’t bothered.

We’re not suggesting that all Scottish police forces are useless at investigating wildlife crime. Some of them are very good, others not so good. Yes, we all recognise that prosecuting wildlife criminals is fraught with legal obstacles, but surely because of that it makes sense to involve as many specialist agencies as possible?

In whose interest is it, not to recommend reporting suspected raptor crime incidents to the SSPCA and RSPB? If we do as the protocol says and just report the incident to the police, who is going to follow up and ensure that the case is properly investigated? Who’s going to keep us, the general public, informed of raptor crime incidents? If the incident is reported solely to the police, who’s to know about an incident if the police decide to suppress it from the public arena? It doesn’t take much imagination to guess at who would benefit from such a protocol.

It is our strongly-held view that ALL incidents of suspected raptor crime should be reported to the RSPB Investigations Unit. If  the police need to be involved then the RSPB will contact them, or you can contact them yourself in addition to contacting the RSPB. If a live animal is involved, the first port of call should be the SSPCA. In our opinion it is vital that these agencies are not excluded from the reporting process – just think about the long list of raptor persecution incidents that the RSPB publishes each year in their annual report – nobody else publishes these because it isn’t in their interests to do so!

RSPB Scotland Investigations Unit: 0131 317 4100

SSPCA 24-hour animal welfare hot-line: 03000 999 999

The second recently-published protocol provides guidance for people who are actively involved in raptor satellite-tracking projects in Scotland. You can read the protocol here.

This one’s amazing. The protocol is, if the signal from your satellite-tagged bird has either ceased or is transmitting from the same area for more than 24 hours, you are to contact the National Wildlife Crime Unit (presumably for ‘intelligence’ on the given area). If you think the circumstances are not suspicious you should contact the landowner and then go looking for the bird. The problem with this is two-fold.

Firstly, what is defined as ‘suspicious’? Surely, any ‘downed’ bird on a piece of land that is used for game shooting must be considered suspicious until proven otherwise? In which case, the landowner should not be informed until a covert search for the downed bird has taken place.

Secondly, just how good is the NWCU’s ‘intelligence’? In a recent NWCU report (NWCU Strategic Assessment, Feb 2011) the following statement appears in the section about peregrine persecution:

“Almost half of these reports originated from the RSPB but were not reported by the police force the offence occured in“.

Christ, if that’s not reason enough to persuade you to report raptor crimes to the RSPB then nothing is!

We don’t know how good the NWCU’s intelligence is. Based on the killing of that golden eagle mentioned above, and the subsequent ‘investigation’, you could argue that their intelligence is rubbish. The history of the area, in terms of dead raptors being found in suspicious circumstances, should have been an instant trigger to set off a request for a search warrant. We still have not been given a satisfactory explanation as to why a search warrant was not requested.

The protocol goes on to explain how any media publicity will be handled after the police investigation. Basically, the police ‘may choose’ to issue a press statement. That means they probably won’t say anything at all or if they do, they undoubtedly won’t mention any estate names. The NWCU will advise the satellite-trackers, and also several nominated groups from the SRPPDG (Scottish Government, BASC and Scottish Land & Estates!!!!!!!). The protocol ends with this:

“There should be no further public comment on the finding“.

What? So it all gets quietly brushed under the carpet, none of us are any the wiser and the game-shooting lobby can continue to claim that they’ve all cleaned up their acts and with no evidence to the contrary they should now be allowed licences to legally cull raptors?

Ah, partnership working at its finest.