Tag: crow trap

Commentary on the conviction of gamekeeper Thomas Munday (bludgeoned Buzzard to death on Hovingham Estate, North Yorkshire)

On Monday this week, former gamekeeper Thomas Munday appeared at Scarborough Magistrates’ Court where he was convicted of killing a Buzzard in March 2024 on land owned by the Hovingham Estate in North Yorkshire and was fined £1,215 (see RSPB press release here).

The case drew wide media attention, not least because it centered on disturbing footage captured on an RSPB covert camera showing Munday brutally beating to death the Buzzard that had been captured inside a Crow cage trap. The violence was appalling, and according to a piece on ITV news, even Munday’s solicitor told the court that his client had done “an incredibly cruel thing, it was a disgusting aberration“.

Thomas Munday (on the left) leaving court with his solicitor (screengrab from ITV News footage)

I said I’d return to this case to provide some commentary. I’m interested in three different aspects of the case: the charge against Munday, the sentence he received, and the location of the crime.

THE CHARGE

Munday was charged with intentionally killing a protected wild bird, a Buzzard. That’s an obvious offence and was clearly evidenced by the RSPB’s video footage. Munday pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity.

But to my mind there were other charges that could have been brought against Munday. For example, using a cage trap to kill or take a protected wild bird, possession of an article (the stick) capable of being used to commit an offence, and perhaps even going equipped (the ATV) to commit an offence.

However, the main additional charge I would have expected to see, based on the video footage, was that of causing unnecessary suffering to the Buzzard (Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006).

It’s beyond doubt, to me, (and apparently to Munday’s solicitor – see above) that that Buzzard suffered unnecessarily due to the two bouts of inhumane and cruel beating caused by Munday.

The courts are expected to treat animal cruelty seriously, as evidenced by the guidelines provided by the Sentencing Council – see here.

If you follow the step-by-step process outlined by the Sentencing Council, Munday’s actions could be determined as being of either High Culpability or Medium Culpability, and the harm caused (death) falls under Category 1 (the most serious level of harm caused).

Sentencing guidelines for offences determined to be High Culpability Category 1 start at two years’ custody. For Medium Culpability Category 1 offences, the starting point is 26 weeks’ custody.

I wonder why the CPS chose not to bring any charges other than that of intentionally killing a protected wild bird (the Buzzard)? Or maybe the CPS did bring other charges and there was a plea bargain? Along the lines of, ‘My client will plead guilty if the other charges are dropped’? That’s a common and legitimate feature of many criminal prosecutions but if that did happen in this case, why did the CPS accept? Was it a case of getting a quick and easy conviction in the bag and let’s move on to the next case?

This is all conjecture, of course, and until there’s better (any!) transparency about charging decisions then we’ll never know.

THE SENTENCE

Munday was fined a total of £1,215 for killing the Buzzard. This amount was broken down as follows:

£807 – fine

£323 – surcharge

£85 – costs

Some people, and I’m one of them, will consider that this level of fine does not reflect the seriousness of the offence and is at the lower end scale available to the courts. As the RSPB stated in its press release after Munday’s conviction, ‘This penalty provides little deterrent to others who may consider committing similar crimes and fails to reflect the casual and callous acts of cruelty involved‘.

I’ve seen some argue that the other consequences Munday faced (i.e. losing his firearms and shotgun certificates, losing his job, losing his home), in addition to the fine, is sufficient penalty for him. I disagree. Losing a job and home is no different to someone being made redundant, through no fault of their own, and having to relocate to find work.

According to media reports, Munday has re-trained (now a tree surgeon, apparently, so need for firearms/shotgun certs), is employed and has moved away from the house he was renting. Paying off a £1,215 fine shouldn’t be too much of a burden to him.

In addition, this case utilised forensic expertise (including examination of the bloodied stick to identify Buzzard DNA, and swabs taken from the vehicle in to which the bludgeoned Buzzard had been thrown). This work was conducted by the Wildlife DNA Forensic Unit at SASA in Scotland, paid for by the Forensic Analysis Fund (to which organisations like Wild Justice, Northern England Raptor Forum, Tayside & Fife Raptor Study Group, Devon Birds, Rare Bird Alert and many individual donors, including this blog’s readers, have contributed – see here).

One of the conditions of using the Forensic Fund for raptor persecution cases is that if the case progresses to court and costs are recoverable, an application must be made to the court to recover those costs, and any amounts recovered must be reimbursed back into the Forensic Fund to be used for other cases.

In this case, an application was made to the court to recover the costs of the forensics work but the magistrates said that a reimbursement wasn’t possible because the forensics work ‘wasn’t necessary’ to the case.

To explain – Munday committed his offence in March 2024. The RSPB passed on the video evidence to North Yorkshire Police who executed a search warrant (date unknown) at an address and retrieved several items for forensic examination. However, Munday wasn’t interviewed at that time (for reasons best known to North Yorkshire Police).

Munday was only interviewed by North Yorkshire Police in December 2025, some 21 months after the crime was committed. Had he been interviewed in 2024, Munday’s solicitor told the court that his client would have held up his hands and pleaded guilty. Hence, in the magistrates’ opinion, the forensics work wouldn’t have been needed.

THE LOCATION OF THE CRIME

If you’ve read a lot of the media reports about this case, including the RSPB’s press release and North Yorkshire Police’s press release, you might have noticed that the name of the estate where this crime took place has not been reported. It’s invariably been described as ‘near Hovingham’ and ‘near Malton’ – even the CPS charge apparently described the location as being ‘near Ripon’, which is unusual as typically the exact location is included in the charge. The exception was an article on the BBC’s website, which stated, ‘Thomas Munday was filmed killing the buzzard on land which is part of the Hovingham Estate, in North Yorkshire, in March 2024‘.

The court was told that Munday was employed by a ‘management company’ (un-named) who leased the land on an estate for a Pheasant shooting syndicate. According to an observer in court, Munday’s solicitor ‘spent a long time’ telling the court that the estate had nothing to do with the Pheasant shoot, and that as soon as the estate found out about the Buzzard being killed, it terminated the lease. Apparently he went as far as to say he hoped the press would report this sensitively. That’s bizarre – it’s almost as though the solicitor was acting for the estate.

I was intrigued by this apparent reluctance to name the estate and did some digging.

Hovingham Estate (also known as Hovingham Hall) has been in the ownership of the Worsley family for over 450 years. Sir William Worsley (6th Baronet) apparently resides there with his family. He’s big into forestry and conservation, according to Wikipedia, being the former Chairman of the National Forest Company, the former Government’s National Tree Champion, and is the current Chair of the Forestry Commission.

The estate has won awards for its woodland management, including winning a silver award in the 2023 Bede Howell Award for Excellence in Silviculture (the year before the Buzzard was beaten to death in the woods). The judges commented:

“We were impressed by the co-ordination achieved between the several estate departments. For example, the woodlands present an attractive landscape of high amenity and biodiversity character. They also host an important pheasant shoot by paying especially close attention to the character of woodland edges. The result is a profitable woodland enterprise containing excellent stands of timber. this integrates effectively with sporting and other estate priorities“.

I can see why a man of this standing would want to distance the estate from the disgusting and barbaric crime committed by gamekeeper Thomas Munday, and the estate deserves full credit for immediately terminating the shooting lease. I wish more landowners would follow this example and act so quickly and decisively when dealing with sporting agents.

But that Bede Howell awards committee statement about Hovingham Estate made me pause for thought. “They also host an important pheasant shoot….” (emphasis is mine).

If you look on the Hovingham Hall website, it includes a statement about what goes on at the estate:

It says the estate includes ‘a shoot’, which suggests to me that the estate may be more involved in Pheasant shooting than simply renting the land to a tenant sporting agent.

However, when I looked around the rest of the website, I couldn’t see any further mention of ‘a shoot’, until I looked at the estate’s privacy policy (dated 2024).

This privacy policy lays out how the estate handles its responsibilities under the Data Protection Act and how personal information is used. There’s an interesting entry under the header ‘Shoot’, which suggests the estate is involved in the administration of the ‘shoot syndicate and Let Days’.

Hmm.

I decided to phone the estate and ask them about their involvement in Pheasant shooting and whether they still had a Pheasant shoot after terminating the shoot lease in 2024.

I spoke to a nice lady in the main office who gave me a prepared statement, as follows:

“Hovingham Estate is aware of an incident involving one of our tenant’s employees. We take a zero tolerance approach to issues of this kind and therefore we took immediate action to terminate the tenant’s lease. We must emphasise that none of our employees are involved in any way“.

That’s pretty clear, but didn’t answer my questions. I asked the questions again and the nice lady told me:

“I’m sorry, I’m not at liberty to comment“.

To be absolutely clear, there is no evidence to suggest that Hovingham Estate knew about the criminal activity of gamekeeper Thomas Munday, and when it did become aware, it acted responsibly and terminated the lease.

If this estate is still hosting Pheasant (or Partridge) shooting, whether leased to another tenant or managed by the estate, I hope that lessons have been learned and close attention is paid to what might be going on in those award-winning woodlands.

Kudos again to the RSPB’s Investigations Team for securing the evidence that led to this conviction.

Gamekeeper Thomas Munday convicted after brutally clubbing trapped Buzzard to death on a Pheasant shoot at Hovingham, North Yorkshire

Further to last week’s blog about a gamekeeper being due to appear in court charged with killing a Buzzard on a Pheasant shoot at Hovingham, North Yorkshire (here), the case was heard today at Scarborough Magistrates’ Court and Thomas Munday pleaded guilty.

Here is a press release from the RSPB:

GAMEKEEPER FILMED BRUTALLY KILLING PROTECTED BUZZARD

  • In March 2024, secret RSPB filming caught gamekeeper Thomas Munday brutally killing a protected Buzzard whilst it was caught in a cage trap on a pheasant shoot near Hovingham, North Yorkshire.
  • Today, at Scarborough Magistrates Court, Munday pleaded guilty to killing a Buzzard and was fined £1,215.
  • Although cage traps can be legally operated under government licences, they have a history of being repeatedly used in unlawful ways to catch and kill birds of prey on land managed for gamebird shooting. These incidents are generally related to attempts by the operator to remove any potential threat to gamebird stocks, reared for commercial shooting.
  • The RSPB is urging the UK Government to introduce a licensing scheme for all gamebird shooting to deter bird of prey persecution and to promote better practices.

On 30 March 2024, a covertly deployed RSPB camera caught a gamekeeper brutally beating a protected Buzzard to death inside a cage trap set in woodland near Hovingham, North Yorkshire.

Screengrab from the RSPB’s covert footage showing gamekeeper Thomas Munday clubbing the Buzzard to death, having already bludgeoned it inside the crow cage trap. The casual level of brutality and the suffering he caused is very disturbing.

The footage shows a Buzzard entering the crow cage trap. Four hours later, a masked and hooded individual arrives at the trap in an all-terrain vehicle. He enters the trap and is seen repeatedly striking the Buzzard with a stick. The injured and incapacitated Buzzard is then removed from the trap – clearly still alive – and beaten several more times with the same stick. The individual then picks up the bird by its wing and throws it into the vehicle before driving away from the site.

The RSPB shared the footage with North Yorkshire Police, who later identified the individual in the footage as Thomas Munday – employed as a gamekeeper.

Of all individuals convicted of bird of prey persecution-related offences between 2009 to 2023, 75% were connected to the gamebird shooting industry and 68% were gamekeepers.

A police-led search of the land, assisted by the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU), resulted in a number of items being seized including the stick used to kill the Buzzard. Forensic testing by the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency (SASA) funded by the Partnership against Wildlife Crime (PAW) Forensic Analysis Fund found traces of Buzzard DNA on the stick. Munday was subsequently charged with the illegal killing of the Buzzard, an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. 

On 12 January 2026, at Scarborough Magistrates Court, Thomas Munday pleaded guilty to killing a Buzzard and was fined £1,215.

Crow cage traps can be legally used under Government General Licence, issued by Natural England, to control corvid species such as Carrion Crows or Magpies, on condition that licence conditions are adhered to. Under these conditions, if a bird of prey or any other non-target species is caught in the trap, on discovery the bird must be released at point of capture without undue delay.

Sadly, this method of targeted killing of birds of prey is a persistent problem in the UK particularly on land managed for gamebird shooting. In a period of ten-years (2015-2024), 30 confirmed incidents of birds of prey being caught and/or dying in unlawful crow cage traps were recorded in the UK. 97% of these incidents were associated with land managed for gamebird shooting. 34 birds of prey were involved in these crimes with Buzzards, Goshawks and Sparrowhawks the most common victims associated with these crimes.

Howard Jones, RSPB Senior Investigations Officer: “The casual and brutal killing of the Buzzard is extremely upsetting to watch and it’s clear that Munday has a complete disregard for the law, and the legislation that protects these birds. Frustratingly, this incident isn’t a one off but is just the latest example of the cruel and disturbing lengths some individuals will go to in order to illegally kill birds of prey.

“These crimes and the wider issue of bird of prey persecution is significantly linked to the gamebird shooting industry. Without long overdue regulation of gamebird shooting we expect to see these crimes continue.”

James Robinson, RSPB Chief Operating Officer said: “Although we welcome Defra’s recent announcement of a review of corvid traps, this latest incident underlines a far wider and deeply entrenched issue for our protected birds of prey.

“For decades, these species have been illegally killed on land managed for pheasant, partridge and grouse shooting. More than half of all 1,529 confirmed persecution incidents recorded from 2009-2023 were linked to gamebird shooting. These crimes will continue without meaningful legislative change.

“Through the introduction of a robust licensing system for all gamebird shooting across the UK, the illegal killing of birds of prey could be effectively deterred. Scotland took this welcome step in 2024 when it introduced licensing for grouse shooting. We need the Government to take action, now.”

Though we welcome the guilty verdict in today’s case, we are disappointed that the sentence imposed is at the lower end of the provisions available to the court. This penalty provides little deterrent to others who may consider committing similar crimes and fails to reflect the casual and callous acts of cruelty involved.

The RSPB thanks the North Yorkshire Police, the NWCU and the Crown Prosecution Service for their vital role in investigating and prosecuting this case.

Members of the public are urged to report any suspected incidents of bird of prey persecution by contacting the police on 101 and by submitting a report to the RSPB.

This can be done via the RSPB’s online reporting form at www.rspb.org.uk/report-crimes or by calling the RSPB’s confidential Raptor Crime Hotline on 0300 999 0101. Reports via the RSPB’s reporting form and Raptor Crime Hotline can be made anonymously.

ENDS

The RSPB covert footage can be viewed here, but BE WARNED, it includes animal cruelty, suffering and death.

My commentary:

I’ll keep this brief because I’m short of time today but I’ll be returning to this particular case later in the week as there are several important points that were not covered in the RSPB’s press release.

For now, the RSPB deserves huge credit for capturing this horrific crime on camera and ultimately securing a conviction. It’s interesting that the defence did not challenge the admissibility of the RSPB’s video footage and the court accepted it without question.

More soon…

UPDATE 16 January 2026: Commentary on the conviction of gamekeeper Thomas Munday (bludgeoned Buzzard to death on Hovingham Estate, North Yorkshire) here

DEFRA publishes Animal Welfare Strategy – includes a ban on snares, trail hunting & a review on traps & gamebird rearing

Three days before Xmas, DEFRA published its Animal Welfare Strategy for England, laying out the Westminster Government’s priorities and a framework for the changes it seeks to achieve by 2030.

The policy paper is wide-ranging and covers farmed livestock, companion animals and wildlife.

Two Labour manifesto pledges are included – “We will ban trail hunting and snares“, and it’s encouraging to read, “We will also conduct a review of the use of other wildlife traps“.

The strategy document can be downloaded / read here:

DEFRA_Animal Welfare Strategy for England_Dec2025Download

The key ‘actions’, of interest to me, are as follows:

  1. We will put an end to trail hunting and consult in early 2026 on how to deliver a ban on trail hunting.
  2. We will deliver on the manifesto commitment to ban the use of snare traps in England.
  3. We will conduct a review of other traps used to catch wildlife in England for which welfare concerns have been raised and carefully consider any recommendations for further action. (E.g. Older spring traps, mole traps and live capture traps used to catch corvids).
  4. We will consider how to bring forward and introduce a close season for hares.
  5. We will review and look to strengthen penalties for cruelty against wildlife so that they are consistent with higher levels of sentencing available for animal welfare offences against pets and livestock.
  6. We will improve our understanding of the welfare issues on how gamebirds are reared in the gamebird sector through issuing a call for evidence.

Whilst a timeframe for the consultation on how to implement a ban on trail hunting has been given as ‘early 2026’ (good!), no timeline has been given on when the ban on snares will be implemented.

Given the indiscriminate level of cruelty and suffering caused by snares, this ban really needs to enacted without delay. Snares have already been banned in Wales (since October 2023) and Scotland (since November 2024).

YouGov polling commissioned by the League Against Cruel Sports last year showed 71% support for a snare ban in England (the figure rose to 80% among people living in rural areas) – see here.

Last month, in response to DEFRA’s animal welfare strategy, the independent and authoritative Wild Animal Welfare Committee (WAWC) published an excellent position paper on snares – well worth a read:

WAWC Position Paper No.5 Snaring in England_Dec2025Download

I’m especially pleased to see in the animal welfare strategy for England that a review on other wildlife traps will take place (although again, no timescale is given for this), and particularly pleased to see that it includes crow cage traps.

The use and mis-use of these traps have featured heavily on the pages of this blog over the years, especially on gamebird shooting estates. Apart from the appallingly low welfare standards they afford to both decoy and trapped birds, they are also frequently used to facilitate the illegal killing of birds of prey.

This Buzzard was caught in a crow cage trap on a grouse-shooting estate in Scotland. Instead of being released, in the dead of night ‘somebody’ arrived on a quad bike, entered the padlocked trap, appeared to strike at something on the ground, removed something from the trap, and then drove off. As the cameras continued to roll, at dawn it became apparent that the Buzzard was no longer in the trap. [Screengrab from video footage on an RSPB covert camera)

Sometimes the use of these traps for illegal persecution is targeted (i.e. by using decoys specifically to attract raptors, e.g. pigeons and doves) but it can also be non-targeted. When a raptor is caught, accidentally, inside one of these traps, by law the trap operator should release the bird, unharmed, at the earliest possible time. However, repeated evidence, usually provided by RSPB covert cameras, has shown gamekeepers taking the opportunity to kill the trapped raptor, typically by bludgeoning it to death with a big stick there and then, or in recent years, the trapped raptor has been bagged up and carried away from the location, presumably to be killed without the risk of it being filmed.

Any proposal to improve animal welfare standards is to be welcomed and I applaud the Westminster Government for acknowledging that measures are needed across the board.

There’s clearly a lot of work to do and we are fortunate to have some excellent animal welfare charities and organisations in the UK whose input will be crucial to ensure this strategy is implemented as comprehensively, robustly and quickly as possible.

Gamekeeper due in court charged with killing bird of prey on a Pheasant shooting estate in Yorkshire

Gamekeeper Thomas Mundy is due to appear at Scarborough Magistrates’ Court next week after being charged with killing a Buzzard on a Pheasant shooting estate at Hovingham, North Yorkshire in April 2024.

Buzzard photo by Ronnie Gilbert

No plea has been entered yet and this will be the first hearing in this case.

NB: As criminal proceedings are live, comments have been turned off.

UPDATE 12 January 2026: Gamekeeper Thomas Munday convicted after brutally clubbing trapped Buzzard to death on a Pheasant shoot at Hovingham, North Yorkshire (here)

UPDATE 16 January 2026: Commentary on the conviction of gamekeeper Thomas Munday (bludgeoned Buzzard to death on Hovingham Estate, North Yorkshire) here

Glen Turret Estate under new management – ecological restoration is in, grouse shooting is out

Some good news to start the week!

At the recent REVIVE conference in Perthshire I met a couple of people from a relatively new Scottish-based charity called the KITH Trust, who, along with the University of Edinburgh, had earlier this year bought the Glen Turret Estate in Strathbraan, Perthshire.

Approximate location of Glen Turret Estate in Perthshire

Regular blog readers will know that Strathbraan is dominated by a number of estates with driven grouse moors and the area has been identified in a Government-commissioned report as being a hotspot for raptor persecution. It’s also the area where NatureScot (formerly SNH) licensed a controversial raven cull in 2018 (see here) but then came under fire from its own scientific advisory committee who stated the scientific rigour of the licence was “completely inadequate“.

Glen Turret Estate has been at the centre of police investigations into alleged wildlife crime over a period of many years (no prosecutions or General Licence restrictions, natch) so the news that it is under new management and no longer operating as a driven grouse moor is very welcome indeed.

This should mean an end to the use of things like crow-cage traps, commonly deployed [legally!] on grouse moors in all seasons, where non-target species like this Long-eared owl can no longer be caught and held for over 24 hrs in appalling weather conditions (photo by RSPB).

This screengrab shows the new ownership details, from Andy Wightman’s brilliant website, Who Owns Scotland:

This map shows the boundary of the area under Kith Trust management, in addition to the Barvick Burn Wood, now under the management of the University of Edinburgh:

The Kith Trust has kindly provided some information about its plans, for publication on this blog:

The KITH Trust (SC049902), a small Scottish family run charity, took on stewardship of Glenturret Estate in January 2024 in partnership with the Department for Social Responsibility and Sustainability at The University of Edinburgh to facilitate their similar goals of ecological restoration.

KITH Trust is dedicated to restoring and protecting natural ecosystems and supporting biodiversity as well as supporting local community activities and enterprise.

The University intends to fence off part of the estate for a mixed tree planting scheme. They have carried out a community engagement project, archaeological surveys and ecological surveys to ensure any activities are undertaken to work with the natural environment and local communities.

KITH Trust has stewardship of the remainder, mainly hill ground. This land has historically been dedicated to the preservation of red grouse. This practice is no longer a primary aim of Glenturret Estate and it no longer operates as a driven grouse moor. There is a farming enterprise on Glenturret that has been in operation for many years. One of the aims of KITH is to reduce, over time, grazing pressure through farming practices that look after both agriculture and the environment. Another is to restore peatland areas. As a result natural regeneration is supported. Active deer management will be undertaken in collaboration with other members of the South Perthshire Deer Management Group and in conjunction with Nature Scot.

ENDS

The University of Edinburgh has a useful website outlining its plans for the restoration of Barvick Burn Wood here.

No doubt certain organisations from the grouse shooting sector will be very unhappy at the loss of another driven grouse moor and over the coming months/years will be misrepresenting the ecological restoration work, just as they have done with other rewilding efforts (e.g. here).

Some of us don’t want to wait for the buy-out of individual driven grouse moors, we’d like to see a widespread ban on driven grouse shooting sooner rather than later. If you share that view, please sign the new petition from Wild Justice calling for a ban – HERE.

Gamekeeper charged with attempting to trap goshawks in North Wales

Press release from North Wales Police (7th March 2024):

Wrexham man charged with wildlife offences

A man has been charged with attempting to take Goshawks in a cage trap on land on the outskirts of Wrexham.

Young goshawk in a cage trap. Photo by RSPB (file photo, not linked to this case)

Birds of prey such as Goshawk are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

The 47 year old man from the Wrexham area was postal charged with using a trap for the purpose of killing or taking a wild bird and possessing an article capable of being used to kill or take a wild bird.

He is due to appear before Wrexham Magistrates Court on Thursday, March 28th.

North Wales Police rural crime team will pursue anyone targeting wildlife and continue to work with our partners the RSPB and National Wildlife Crime Unit.

ENDS

This press release is quite vague, and I believe deliberately so. Definitely one to watch. Comments are closed until criminal proceedings have concluded.

UPDATE 9th March 2024: This blog article has been picked up by Nation Cymru, the Welsh news service, here.

UPDATE 27th March 2024: Gamekeeper Stuart Hart due in court tomorrow to face charges of alleged wildlife crime (here)

Prosecution rate for crimes against birds of prey less than 4% – Sky News

This weekend Sky News ran several pieces about raptor persecution and how the wildlife killers are getting with these crimes, with a prosecution rate of less than 4%.

They produced a written piece (here) featuring quotes from the RSPB’s Investigations Team and they also conducted several interviews, one with Howard Jones, RSPB Senior Investigations Officer, one with Mark Thomas, Head of RSPB Investigations and one with Chris Packham.

The interview with Mark Thomas showed some covert video footage by the RSPB showing two gamekeepers removing live buzzards from a crow cage trap, putting them inside fertiliser sacks, tying the top and putting the bags inside a vehicle. It doesn’t show what happened to them next but you can probably imagine; there have been enough previous cases where gamekeepers have been caught on camera bludgeoning trapped birds of prey to death (e.g. see here, here, here) to make an educated guess. These earlier convictions probably explain why these days its common to see the trapped birds being removed from the trap and taken away, presumably to be killed away from potential covert cameras. It’s also telling that the gamekeepers involved in more recent cases typically wear face masks in an attempt to hide their identities. They’ve learned from the mistakes of others.

As Mark discusses during the interview, it’s not an offence to catch birds of prey in crow cage traps – they often get in and can’t then find a way out. If the trap operator releases them, unharmed, immediately after discovering them, then no offence has been committed. Putting them inside a sack and taking them away is a clear offence and is indicative of further offences (i.e. killing the birds elsewhere).

This particular footage hasn’t previously been published, and there’s a reason for that. I’ll return to this case in a separate blog.

I can’t find the full interviews in one place but there are various clips that can be watched via Twitter, which I’ve linked below.

‘Predator control’ on Scottish grouse moors causes tremendous, unjustifiable suffering to animals, say academics

Press release from the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics (4th December 2023):

‘Predator control’ on Scottish grouse moors causes tremendous, unjustifiable suffering to animals, say academics.

Over 120 academics worldwide have backed a report that calls for an end to snaring, trapping, and poisoning animals on Scottish moors. Animals are killed in order to artificially inflate grouse populations for shooting.

“The best available estimates indicate that as many as 260,000 animals are killed as a result of legal ‘predator control’ practices each year in Scotland” maintains the Report.

The Report is signed by numerous ethicists and philosophers, including Scottish academics from the universities of St Andrews, Edinburgh, Stirling, and Aberdeen, and the Nobel Laureate, J. M. Coetzee.

Titled “Killing to Kill,” the 71-page report by the Oxford Centre for Animal Ethics graphically details how each method of control “causes suffering, or prolongs suffering, or makes animals liable to suffering.”

Snares are condemned because they “inevitably mean that animals can struggle for hours in considerable pain and distress.” Even the supposedly most humane trap, the DOC (Department of Conservation) trap, only kills 80% of its victims quickly, while the remaining 20% are left to suffer appalling injuries, with no requirement for inspection. And poisons mean that animals suffer for days.

“This is a major moral issue” claims Centre director the Revd Professor Andrew Linzey, “it simply cannot be right to cause tremendous suffering for non-essential purposes. When we began the report, we knew hardly anything about these control measures, but we have been staggered by the degree of suffering. Few people are cognizant of the situation. It is a much neglected and overlooked area of animal cruelty.”

The report concludes by calling for a new charter for free-living animals. “Scotland could lead the way in pioneering legislation that encompasses not only domestic animals, but also free-living ones. This legislation should begin with the recognition of sentiency and enshrine in law the value and dignity of free-living animals such that their right to live unmolested is respected.”

The report is written by a fellow and the directors of the Centre, Dr Katie Javanaud, Dr Clair Linzey, and the Revd Professor Andrew Linzey. It was commissioned by the Scottish charity, the League Against Cruel Sports, but is an entirely independent report and at no point did the League seek to influence the Report’s findings or conclusions.

Director of the League Against Cruel Sports Scotland Robbie Marsland, commented: “The League Against Cruel Sports is not surprised that many people believe Scotland’s “grouse moors” are an animal ethics free zone. Polling shows that 76% of Scots do not support the practice of ‘predator control’ to kill hundreds and thousands of animals so that more grouse can be shot for entertainment.

“This report clearly outlines the ethical case against this uncontrolled killing. The biggest surprise is that any suggestion that this killing should stop is met with incredulity by the shooting fraternity. We hope the report will open the eyes of politicians considering the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill to the enormous ethical issues before them.”

ENDS

The report can be read / downloaded here:

killing-to-kill_oxford-centre-animal-ethicsDownload

The report’s publication received front page coverage in The Herald this morning (here).

Two gamekeepers due in court after police investigation on Van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate in Norfolk

Two gamekeepers are due to appear at Norwich Magistrates Court next week charged with a number of alleged offences relating to a police investigation that centred on William van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate in Norfolk last year.

A police search of the estate took place in April 2022 after a group called the Hunt Investigation Team, describing itself as ‘anti bloodsports’, said it had recorded covert video footage of a masked man with a goshawk inside what was considered to be an illegally-set trap on the estate. The masked man removed the goshawk and walked away from the trap. The goshawk’s fate was unknown.

Details of the charges have not yet been publicised and as this will be the first hearing in this case, the two gamekeepers have not yet entered a plea. Hopefully details will become clearer after the first hearing.

PLEASE NOTE: As this is now a live prosecution blog comments will not be accepted until criminal proceedings have concluded. Thanks for your understanding.

Previous blogs on this case can be found here:

8th May 2022: Van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate in Norfolk at centre of police investigation into alleged raptor persecution (here)

10th May 2022: Illegally-set trap found on van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate in Norfolk (here)

11th May 2022: Police confirm bird of prey was caught in illegally-set trap on van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate in Norfolk (here)

12th May 2022: Covert footage published showing masked man with trapped goshawk on van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate (here)

16th May 2022: Mail on Sunday blames ‘vigilantes’ for police investigation into alleged wildlife crime on van Cutsem’s estate (here)

12th August 2022: GWCT disregards police investigation into alleged wildlife crime on van Cutsem’s Norfolk estate (here)

Inhumane trapping of wild animals on grouse moors must end – opinion piece by Bob Elliot (OneKind)

The Press & Journal published an excellent opinion piece by Bob Elliot yesterday, timed to coincide with the Inglorious 12th.

Bob is the former Head of Investigations at RSPB and currently is the Director of OneKind, a small yet effective animal welfare charity in Scotland that punches well above its weight. OneKind is also a member of REVIVE, the coalition for grouse moor reform, so Bob’s credentials to write this piece are second to none.

Most readers of this blog are, I would guess, very familiar with the consequences of illegally-set traps on grouse moors and their use to capture birds of prey which are then subsequently killed, but there’s less attention given to the legal use of these traps to target so-called legitimate ‘pest’ species.

This typically thoughtful piece from Bob covers the main welfare concerns. It’s reproduced below:

At this time of the year, my thoughts always turn to the start of the grouse shooting season, or the “Glorious Twelfth”, as it is known in the shooting community.

There really isn’t anything glorious about it at all, people shooting live birds for fun.

For the shooting groups to have enough grouse to kill, the grouse moors need to be heavily managed, and the killing of predators continues unrelentingly.

In the past, I spent many a day walking the hills of Scotland, investigating wildlife crime, and would regularly come across cage traps used by gamekeepers: structures of wood and wire, incongruous looking objects in the landscape. But, did you know that crows and magpies, intelligent and sensitive birds, are routinely trapped and killed in these cages?

There are several types of traps, and they fall into two main categories: large crow cage traps, big enough for a person to enter, which are designed to catch multiple birds, and the smaller, more portable Larsen traps, which are designed to catch one bird.

Whilst many wildlife crime incidents have been recorded for the “misuse” of crow cage traps, their use is cruel, even when used legally. The impact being caught in these traps has on crows and other corvids, such as magpies, should not be underestimated.

Sudden confinement is inevitably going to be frightening and stressful for any wild animal. On top of this, crows and magpies are territorial birds, so being forced to share space with others leads to additional stress and aggression. Birds will fly about, frantically trying to escape, and can injure themselves in the process.

It is legally permitted to leave birds in these traps for up to 24 hours. After a long confinement, possibly exposed to the elements and to predation, they are killed by the person who set the trap.

This is usually done with a blow to the head, but it is not always a humane death and may take repeated hits. I remember an incident where a gamekeeper was filmed trying for several minutes to catch and kill crows in a trap, while the others flew around, panicked.

Even worse, though, must be the use of “decoy” birds, used to lure other birds into the trap in a seemingly endless cycle of killing. I have seen birds enduring some of the worst Scottish weather.

On one occasion, I remember temperatures were very low, and the biting wind was blowing the rain sideways on the exposed hillside. The decoy bird in the trap remained hunched on the perch, with no shelter apart from a rudimentary box placed on the floor in the corner of the trap.

These decoy birds could be used repeatedly for weeks or months, after initially being caught themselves. They might be mutilated to cut their wing and tail feathers, so they are unable to fly.

Although there is a legal requirement to provide them with food, water, shelter and a perch, these provisions are often pitifully inadequate. Either way, they are ultimately doomed to death, and are confined so that others can meet the same fate.

All this killing so that an unnaturally high population of red grouse can be maintained for sport shooting. In my mind, it is unjustifiable.

The Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill currently in parliament will bring greater regulations on the use of these traps, and we welcome that.

We would, of course, prefer to see an end to crow cage traps altogether, and will continue to campaign for the banning of their use. However, it is crucial that steps are taken now to regulate the trapping of crows and other wild animals in a way that prevents the worst suffering of wild animals on Scotland’s grouse moors.

ENDS

For anyone interested in reading more on this subject, I’d recommend Alick Simmons’ new book: Treated Like Animals – Improving the lives of the creatures we own, eat and use. (2023 Pelagic Publishing). Alick worked as the UK Government’s Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer for many years. In his book he devotes an entire chapter to ‘Snares, Guns and Poison: the ‘Management’ of wildlife. Well worth a read (see here).