Tag: crow trap

Crow traps: what you should know part 3

This article follows on from Crow traps: what you should know part 1 (here) and part 2 (here). We haven’t been able to find a detailed, up to date article on this subject so we’ve taken information from a variety of sources including the police, Paw Scotland, SNH, RSPB, OneKind, SSPCA and the Raptor Study Groups. This is just our interpretation of the available information and doesn’t constitute an official, legal interpretation. Who knows, maybe PAW Scotland will produce something more definitive in the near future…

How to tell the difference between a legally-operated and an illegally-operated crow cage trap.

As we discussed in part 2, it is not always easy to determine whether a trap is being legally-operated because some of the conditions that the trap operator must comply with under the terms of the general licence can be quite ambiguous. Quite often the distinction between a legally and an illegally-operated trap is blurred. It helps if you are already aware of the conditions of the general licence (see here for licences 1-3 used by crow trap operators) as although there is ambiguity on some issues, there are other things that are easier to recognise as an indication of almost certain illegal use.

Almost certainly illegal

1. An operational trap must display a tag or a sign with the telephone number of the local police station or Police Wildlife Crime Officer as well as a police-issued trap code number that allows the police to identify the trap owner. If you find a crow cage trap that’s being used without one of these signs it is being illegally-operated. Don’t be fooled by a sign that doesn’t contain these numbers but says something like, ‘RSPB bird conservation project”. We are aware that some trap operators have tried to trick the general public with misleading and sometimes fraudulent signs.

2. The type of bird used as a decoy inside the trap is restricted to certain species of corvids (check the specific general licences for current lists). If the decoy bird is anything other than a permitted decoy species, the trap is being illegally-operated. Particular attention should be paid if the decoy is a raven or a pigeon/dove. These are definitely NOT permitted decoy species and are an indication that the trap is probably being used illegally to attract non-target species (ravens and raptors).

3. The decoy bird(s) must not be tethered, blinded or maimed. If it is, the trap is being illegally-operated.

4. The decoy bird(s) must have ‘adequate’ food and water. The term ‘adequate’ is ambiguous and will be discussed in the ‘possibly illegal’ category below. However, if food and water is not present at all, the trap is being illegally-operated.

5. The decoy bird(s) must be provided with a ‘suitable’ perch that does not cause discomfort to the bird’s feet. The term ‘suitable’ is ambiguous and will be discussed in the ‘possibly illegal’ category below. However, if no perch is provided at all, the trap is being illegally-operated.

6. The decoy bird(s) must be provided with ‘adequate’ shelter with ‘adequate’ protection from the prevailing wind and rain. As before, the term ‘adequate’ is ambiguous and will be discussed in the ‘possibly illegal’ category below. However, if no shelter has been provided at all, the trap is being illegally-operated.

7. If there are dead birds inside the trap (either target or non-target species) that have been there for longer than 24 hours (i.e. they are decomposed or skeletal) then the trap is being illegally-operated. Trap operators are required to inspect each operational trap at least once every day at intervals of no more than 24 hours, except where severe weather prohibits. Dead or sickly birds must be immediately removed from the trap.

8. If the trap is not in use (no decoy bird(s)) but the trap door or a panel has not been either removed from the site completely or taken off the trap and secured with a locked padlock, then the trap is being illegally-operated. Wedging the door open with a boulder or a log is not enough – the door or a panel must be removed completely.

Possibly illegal

1. If a decoy bird has not been provided with ‘adequate’ food and water. ‘Adequate’ is open to interpretation and is highly subjective. If the water is filthy and covered in algae, is it considered ‘adequate’? What constitutes ‘adequate’ food for a carrion crow? Usually they are given dead rabbits or hares inside these traps but we’ve also seen dog biscuits and grain!

2. If a decoy bird has not been provided with an ‘adequate’ perch that does not cause discomfort to the bird’s feet. Again, this is ambiguous and depends on the decoy species. The perch should be thick enough for the bird to perch without its toes curling around and digging into its foot, which could cause injury and pain. So a strand of wire stretched across the inside of the trap is unlikely to be considered an ‘adequate’ perch.

3. If a decoy bird has not been provided with ‘adequate’ shelter with ‘adequate’ protection from the prevailing wind and rain. According to a OneKind report, some cage traps have been seen with a piece of plastic less than the size of an A4 sheet of paper serving as a shelter. Is this ‘adequate’? Probably not because it won’t offer shelter from the prevailing wind and rain. Other traps have been seen with the soggy pulp of a former cardboard box stuck in the corner – clearly inadequate!

4. If a decoy bird looks sickly or injured. The bird may have become sick or injured itself since the trap operator’s last visit, so the trap operator hasn’t committed an offence (unless he fails to remove the bird at his next visit). However, the bird could have a long-term sickness or injury (e.g. feathers worn down to stumps and bleeding carpals: injuries consistent with long-term attempts to escape by flying at the side of the cage) in which case the bird should have been removed and it’s highly probable an offence has been committed.

5. If there are multiple birds inside the trap. Crow cage trap operators are permitted to use more than one decoy bird as long as it is one of the permitted corvid decoy species (as opposed to a Larsen trap where only a single decoy is permitted). However, these decoy birds are not marked in any way as to distinguish them from any other trapped bird. This makes it difficult to determine whether the trap has been left un-inspected for longer than 24 hours (because the trap operator can claim all the birds inside the trap are being used as decoys).

6. If there is a raptor (or another non-target species) caught inside the trap. It’s important to know that it is not illegal to accidentally catch a raptor or other non-target species inside a crow cage trap. It is illegal, however, for the trap operator not to release the bird, unharmed, immediately on discovery. How do you tell whether the raptor has been inside the trap for longer than 24 hours? It’s very difficult, unless you saw it inside the trap more than 24 hours previously, and even then this would be difficult to prove because (a) unless it is uniquely marked how do you know it’s the same bird?, and (b) the trap operator could claim the bird was released and has since re-entered the trap since the last inspection! If the raptor is dead and decomposed it is highly probable an offence has been committed.

What should you do if you suspect a trap is being illegally-operated?

1. Be suspicious.

2. Take photographs and/or video.

3. Record your location (either GPS or map reference if possible).

4. Record the date and time.

5. If you are with anyone, make sure they’ve seen what you’ve seen (corroborative evidence).

6. Don’t be fooled by anything written on the trap sign, even if it says ‘This is a legal trap’. It may well be a legal trap but it might be being illegally-operated.

7. Don’t interfere with the trap (but see point 5 below) or you could be prosecuted for criminal damage.

8. Beware of hidden cameras pointing at the trap and also be aware that some of these cameras can also record your voice!

9. As soon as possible after discovery, report your concerns to the authorities (see section below).

10. If the trap contains a raptor that looks in good health, you need to report it IMMEDIATELY (see below for your choice of reporting agencies). You shouldn’t be tempted to release the bird yourself (unless there is a genuine welfare concern, see below). If none of the reporting agencies can respond in good time, you should call the police again and request permission to release the bird yourself, as long as you are certain it is uninjured. Make sure you get the name or number of the police officer you speak to!

What should you do if you are concerned about the welfare of a trapped bird?

If you discover a trap that contains any bird that is in distress or is injured, you have a decision to make about what to do.

1. The recommended advice from the police is to call them (using the telephone number on the trap sign, assuming there is one). However, calling the police can be very hit and miss, depending on your location. Some police forces will send someone out straight away. Sometimes there may be a considerable delay if the police are busy with other call-outs. Sometimes you won’t be able to get a police response because the WCO is off-duty or just not answering the phone! Sometimes the police may call the trap operator and ask him to attend – this could be dangerous as the trap operator may take the injured bird (let’s say it’s a protected raptor species) and pretend to be conveying it to a vet when his real intention (when out of sight) may be much more sinister.

3. Apart from the police, the only other agency that has the statutory authority to investigate a potential animal welfare incident is the SSPCA. The benefit to calling the SSPCA first is that they have a 24 hour animal helpline (enter this into your phone now! – 03000 999 999). This phone number is specifically for calls about animal welfare incidents and SSPCA officers are trained to handle distressed animals. The SSPCA can attend an incident and remove an animal for veterinary care without needing permission from the police. They are also trained to recognise whether an offence has been committed and can prosecute without any help from the police. The SSPCA would be our first port of call every time.

4. Many people would think of the RSPB as an obvious first call but the RSPB has no more authority than you. They would have to involve one of the official reporting agencies (police or SSPCA) for anything to happen so it could be argued that you are wasting time by calling the RSPB first, although they would be a good source of advice and if the other two agencies can’t respond in good time the RSPB would be your next best bet. Tel: 0131 317 4100.

5. If none of the above agencies can respond in good time, which is rare but sometimes does happen, and you genuinely believe that the injured/distressed bird requires immediate help, any decent person would remove it and get it to a vet as fast as possible (as seen in the recent incident at Lindertis Estate here). This may involve damage to the trap (e.g. if the padlock has to be broken to open the door). Would this result in a criminal prosecution against the person trying to rescue a distressed or injured bird? It might seem unlikely but see here for a recent warning written by Scottish Land and Estates and published on the PAW Scotland website!! Would a prosecution against the rescuer depend on whether the trap was being legally or illegally-operated? It’s well documented that it may be an offence to interfere with a legally set trap, but we are often advised that if we find what we think is an illegally set trap (e.g. a pole trap) then we should disable it. Now we’ve all seen some of the strange decisions made by COPFS in the recent past but to criminalise the action of someone who is genuinely trying to help an injured/distressed animal and who has tried to involve the reporting agencies but without success, would doubtless result in public uproar. We’re not aware of any prosecutions of this type and we might expect COPFS to be able to tell the difference between someone who had a malicious intent to release a bird because they didn’t agree with it’s confinement and someone wanting to help a distressed animal.  It will probably help if there is photographic and/or video evidence of the distressed/injured bird inside the trap and if the actions have been reported to the SSPCA or the local police.

Please note: this advice goes against that given by PAW Scotland (see here) who say don’t attempt to remove a bird (although they don’t specify whether they’re talking about an injured/distressed bird, or just a trapped but healthy bird) but then they don’t offer any other advice if the reporting agencies fail to attend! It seems that this is a subject that requires greater clarity for all concerned. And of course, let’s not forget that if all trap operators were responsible individuals who could be trusted to operate within the law then a lot of the issues raised here would be redundant.

Crow traps: what you should know part 2

Following on from our earlier blog – Crow traps: what you should know part 1 (here)

The following information concerns the use of crow cage traps in Scotland; they are also used in other parts of the UK although the terms of use differ slightly (see here for information on their use in England, here for Wales and here for Northern Ireland).

What is a crow trap and why should we be concerned about them?

There are various types of animal traps in use in the countryside but the two we focus on in this article are the ‘ladder’ and ‘funnel’ crow cage traps. These are large, walk-in traps usually constructed with a wooden frame and wire mesh netting. A decoy bird (often a carrion crow but certain other decoy species are also permitted) is placed inside the trap to attract corvids or other target species. Birds that are attracted to the trap can enter via the roof, either through the horizontal slots of the ‘ladder’ or via a ‘funnel’. Once inside the trap it is virtually impossible for the birds to escape unaided. These trapped birds are usually destined to certain death at the hands of the trap operator who is legally authorised to kill them, subject to certain conditions (discussed in Part 3). In some rare circumstances, raptor workers deploy temporary crow cage traps to capture buzzards for marking projects, such as wing-tagging etc. Obviously these buzzards are released as soon as they’ve been marked; they aren’t killed by the trap operator!

There are many concerns surrounding the use of crow cage traps (some we’ll discuss below) but the over-riding concern is the indiscriminate nature of these traps, which means that species other than the target species can be, and often are, caught by gamekeepers, e.g. buzzards, goshawks, golden eagles etc. It is not illegal to (accidentally) trap these non-target species, but it is an offence for the trap operator not to release them, unharmed, at the earliest opportunity. More on this in Part 3.

Crow trap use is governed by a general licence, issued annually by Scottish Natural Heritage (see here). These licences are issued for the purpose of either (a) the conservation of wild birds, (b) to prevent serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables and fruit, and (c) to protect public health, public safety and prevent the spread of disease. Trap operators need not ‘apply’ for an individual licence, hence the name ‘general’ licence. Each general licence is subject to strict conditions (discussed in Part 3). If the trap operator complies with all the conditions of the general licence then the use of the crow trap is legal. However, in practice some of these conditions are ambiguous at best, and this is recognised by SNH who undertake regular consultations aimed at clarifying the terms of use (e.g. see here for their latest consultation plans).

Before we get in to the nitty gritty of how to recognise a legal trap from an illegal trap it’s worth mentioning that the RSPB (and other groups such as OneKind) has long campaigned for a more thorough review of the legal framework concerning these general licences for crow traps, particularly in relation to potential breaches of European legislation, including the EC Birds Directive. For anyone interested in the RSPB’s position, this document from 2007 (here) is informative.

Other concerns include the fact that there isn’t any effective monitoring of the impact these traps have on both target and non-target species. Crow traps are in use across Scotland year-round but are especially associated with upland grouse moors. It isn’t known exactly how many crow traps are in operation in Scotland but a conservative estimate would be in the hundreds, but probably nearer the thousands. There is currently no requirement for trap operators to record and/or report the number of target and non-target species caught and killed inside a trap (and even if there was such a requirement, who would believe the submitted figures? No gamekeeper is going to admit to illegally killing a protected species!). So how can the regulatory body (SNH) monitor the impact of crow trap use when they haven’t got a clue just how many traps are in use and how many birds and of what species are being killed each year? The follow-on question is, how can these general licences still be issued when the regulatory body cannot justify, in quantifiable terms, the need for lethal control measures?

Some may argue that there is now a record of the number of traps in use because recent changes to the general licences now require that a sign is attached to each trap with a unique identifying code issued by the local police force. However, this unique code is not assigned to an individual trap or to an individual trap operator, but rather to a landowner (or occupier) such as a sporting estate or a farm. This means that an estate owner can use the same code for multiple traps on his/her land (e.g. they may have just one trap or they may have 50+ traps depending on the size of the estate); the point is that the authorities do not have any means of knowing how many traps are in use on a particular estate because they only issue one code per estate.

From a law enforcement perspective, this use of a single identifying code for multiple traps makes it almost impossible to prosecute an individual for illegal use of the trap. For example, if a golden eagle is found dead inside a trap, and it’s obviously been there for a long time, then an offence has probably been committed (because traps must be checked at least once in every 24 hour period – see Part 3). Investigators may attend the scene but find that the trap is located on a large estate that employs multiple gamekeepers. None of the gamekeepers admit responsibility, so how does the investigator identify the individual responsible? A prosecution cannot commence unless an individual suspect is identified. It’s the same loophole we’ve seen used so many times when poisoned bait has been found on a large estate; nobody admits responsibility for laying the bait and thus the perpetrator(s) escape justice. It is only when the trap is located on a smaller estate where a single gamekeeper is employed that there is any chance of a prosecution.

Talking of loopholes….we’ve touched on this briefly in previous posts….in 2008 a new condition was added to the terms of use of the general licences. That new condition was that anyone who had a previous wildlife crime conviction was not allowed to use the general licence unless their conviction was considered ‘spent’, i.e. after five years from conviction. (Although even if you did have a recent conviction you could still apply for use of the licence and each case would be considered on merit, so it’s not quite the draconian condition that some imply). However, in 2009 the condition (of being banned for five years) was modified and we don’t recall any consultation about the insertion of this modification! The new modification says that you can still use the general licence if the sentence you received for your wildlife crime was an ‘admonishment’. Talk about a get-out clause! You might think this modification was quite reasonable, after all, an admonishment (effectively a telling off) is only given for minor offences, right? WRONG!!! Because there aren’t any mandatory sentences for wildlife crime offences in Scotland, a sheriff can choose a sentence at will (within the boundaries of sentencing limits at a Sheriff court, of course). In 2010, a sheriff imposed an admonishment on Graham Kerr, a gamekeeper on the Redmyre Estate, for possession of the banned pesticides Carbofuran and Alphachloralose (see here). The maximum penalty available was a £5000 fine and/or a six month prison term, reflecting the gravity of this type of offence. Had Kerr not also been handed a £400 fine for shooting a buzzard on the Redmyre Estate, his admonishment would have allowed him to continue using the general licence to operate a crow cage trap. In our opinion this is outrageous. What’s the point of having a condition of a five-year ban for a wildlife criminal if that condition is modified based on the whim of a sheriff’s sentencing choice rather than the nature of the actual criminal offence committed? It’s total nonsense. Why was this modification added to the terms of the general licence and who instigated its inclusion in 2009 and who approved it? Was anyone given the opportunity to object to its inclusion? Perhaps a Freedom of Information request is called for here…

This leads on to another concern…who is actually monitoring the trap operators? How do we know that someone with a recent criminal conviction (who was given a stronger sentence than an admonishment) is not still operating a crow cage trap? We know that many estates don’t sack their gamekeepers following a wildlife crime conviction, and we know of at least one estate where a previously convicted gamekeeper (guilty of raptor persecution) is now employed as a ‘gardener’!!

The potential for the misuse of crow traps is well known amongst raptor workers.  Previous reports on this issue have been produced by the RSPB (e.g. see here). Although this 2004 report is now fairly dated and some of the report’s recommendations have since been implemented, there is still a great deal of concern that crow traps are still being deliberately used to target raptor species, particularly buzzards and goshawks and in some areas, golden eagles.

So what can we do about it? In Part 3 we’ll explain the basics of what makes a crow cage trap legal, what makes one illegal, and the blurred line in between the two. We’ll also explain what members of the public should and shouldn’t do if you find a crow trap that you suspect is being operated illegally.

Crow traps: what you should know part 1

Without even the tiniest weeniest hint of irony, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association is complaining about ‘criminal activity in the countryside’ in reference to the recent alleged release of crows from a trap on a Scottish sporting estate.

Oh and it gets better…. according to the SGA, in response to this criminal activity Northern Constabulary has “issued an appeal for information”. Although we should point out that we’ve been unable to find any public record of this ‘appeal for information’ so we only have the SGA’s word to rely upon. But let’s assume the SGA is telling the truth…

Is this the same Northern Constabulary who apparently failed to fully investigate the suspected decapitation and shooting of a white-tailed eagle on Skye (see here) and the discovery of a poisoned red kite on the boundary of Skibo Estate (see here)?

That’s not the end of the irony either – the SGA goes on to suggest that cameras could be installed at crow traps, presumably to film any member of the public who may be inclined to interefere with the trap (which may amount to a criminal offence). Wouldn’t it be interesting to see whether that film footage would be considered as acceptable evidence in any subsequent prosecution, especially after recent film footage showing the activities of a Scottish gamekeeper using a stick to beat crows to death inside a crow trap on a Speyside sporting estate (see here), was deemed inadmissable evidence?

One rule for one but not the other? Surely not!

In light of the SGA’s recent one-sided promotion of crow traps and their encouragement to SGA members to report suspected trap interference (see here for their article) as well as the landowners’ representative body, Scottish Land and Estates, encouraging their members to do likewise (see here), we thought it only fair that we provide an alternative view on the use (and more importantly the mis-use) of crow traps on Scottish sporting estates and give the public the neccessary information about how to recognise the difference between a legal and an illegal trap, and what to do if you find an illegal one.

Watch this space…

Is this convicted gamekeeper a member of the SGA?

Last Tuesday (3 April 2012), Scottish gamekeeper Robert Christie of the Lindertis Estate was convicted at Forfar Sheriff Court of wildlife crimes (see here).

Nine days later, we are still waiting for the Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA) to issue a public statement condemning the criminal activities that led to the conviction and also clarifying Christie’s SGA membership status. Was he an SGA member at the time he committed the offences (2010)? If so, is he still a member now he has a criminal conviction?

It’s unusual for the SGA to be so coy about the membership status of a convicted gamekeeper. To their credit, in each of the cases that have been heard so far this year (and even in one case that didn’t even make it to court – the crow trap video case), the SGA has been quick to publicise whether the accused/convicted gamekeeper was an SGA member.

So why so coy this time? Perhaps we should give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they just got caught up in the Easter holidays and haven’t got around to making a statement yet. Although they have managed to find the time to add various other news items to their website, including an announcement about a forthcoming snaring training course at a choice of venue that certainly raised our eyebrows (see here).

If anyone has tried to contact the SGA about Christie’s membership status we would be very interested to hear about it. For anyone who wants to ask them now, here are the SGA’s contact details:

Email: info@scottishgamekeepers.co.uk

Tel (Perth Office): 01738 587515

Why convicted gamekeeper Robert Christie only got a telling off

Two days ago we blogged about Scottish gamekeeper Robert Christie (Lindertis Estate) who was convicted at Forfar Sheriff Court after pleading guilty to wildlife crimes (see here).

Since then there has been a fair bit of press coverage but the media hasn’t really picked up on the fact that Christie’s ‘punishment’ was just an admonishment (effectively a telling off), even though the available penalties included a fine of up to £5,000 and/or a six month prison sentence.

However, an article published in yesterday’s Courier did include commentary about the penalty:

“…Sheriff Kevin Veal at Forfar decided not to impose a penalty on gamekeeper Robert Christie after hearing the ‘immediate and draconian consequences’ connected with breaching a trapping licence could render the 57-year-old unemployable for the rest of his working life”.

Christie’s solicitor, David McKie (who also happens to be the SGA’s solicitor – see here), reportedly commented:

“There are implications under the general licence – if the court imposes anything more than an admonition the licence is automatically withdrawn for five years“.

Was what Christie did the crime of the century? No of course it wasn’t, but what it was, without a doubt, was a criminal offence under the wildlife legislation. It seems astonishing that the Sheriff would decide not to impose any penalty, especially given the current high priority that the Scottish Government has placed on tackling wildlife crime.

What we are seeing yet again is an inconsistency in sentencing (compare Christie’s penalty with that of Aswanley Estate gamekeeper Craig Barrie who was recently fined £520 for illegal use of a trap, see here) and the sense that wildlife crime is still not being taken seriously by some Scottish courts. Do you think this defence would be acceptable for other offences, such as a drink driving taxi driver? ‘Oh, sorry m’Lord, yes I was drunk when I drove my car and I really should have known the consequences of doing this as driving is my profession but the immediate and draconian measure of losing my licence will also mean I lose my job’.

Talking of taking wildlife crime seriously, the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association has not yet issued any public statement of condemnation for Christie’s actions, nor have they said whether he is/was an SGA member. To find out about Christie’s SGA membership status, send an email to: info@scottishgamekeepers.co.uk

Article in the Courier here

Scottish gamekeeper ‘admonished’ for wildlife crimes

Scottish gamekeeper Robert Alexander Christie (58) was convicted today at Forfar Sheriff Court for wildlife crimes relating to the illegal use of a crow cage trap. He was ‘punished’ by receiving an admonishment.

Christie pled guilty to taking a wild bird, possessing a wild bird, and using an illegal trap by failing to adhere to the terms of the general licence (this general licence governs the use of crow cage traps in Scotland).

The offences took place on the Lindertis Estate near Kirriemuir, Angus on 8 August 2010. Lindertis Estate is listed as a sporting estate providing pheasant and partridge shooting (see here). A tawny owl was rescued from inside a crow cage trap in a wood on the estate by a member of the public. The owl was reportedly in poor condition (severely malnourished and unable to hold its own bodyweight on its legs) when it was found and it was sent to a vet for treatment. The owl was released back into the wild on 13 August.

The crow cage trap reportedly did not contain food or shelter, and a tray of water contained green algae, and the trap did not have an identification tag, all contrary to the terms of the general licence.

Christie has 24 years of gamekeeping experience and has been employed as a full-time gamekeeper on this estate for approximately 18 years.

Also due to appear in court was Christie’s employer, who according to Burke’s Peerage is a hereditary peer: The Rt Hon The Lord Colyton, although in the court listing his name was given as Alisdair John Munro Hopkinson. Charges against Hopkinson related to allegedly causing/permitting the gamekeeper to use an illegal trap (Wildlife & Countryside Act). However, charges against Hopkinson were not proceeded, perhaps because Christie pled guilty.

This case was prosecuted by one of the new specialist wildlife fiscals, Shona McJannett. She is quoted as saying:

“Today’s conviction highlights the importance of ensuring that crow cage traps are operated legally in terms of the general licence. The protection of our wildlife is a priority and a robust view will be taken by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in relation to any reports alleging breach of these general licence conditions.”

Now, it’s refreshing news to hear that COPFS will take a ‘robust view’ of this type of wildlife crime and hopefully they will continue to prosecute these cases, but the penalty handed out by the court doesn’t quite match the Fiscal’s view of the seriousness of the offence. Christie’s ‘punishment’ (the admonishment) is effectively no punishment at all. It’s basically a ‘telling off’ (see here for a definition) and because he wasn’t given a more serious penalty (e.g. a fine) it means he is NOT banned from continuing to operate crow cage traps under the general licence. What sort of deterrent is a telling off? What message does this send to other wildlife criminals? Does anyone think Christie will lose his job now he’s got a conviction for wildlife crime?

It is not known whether Christie is a member of the Scottish Gamekeeper’s Association. Anyone interested in finding out can ask the SGA by emailing: info@scottishgamekeepers.co.uk. We would be very interested to learn whether he is a member, and if so, does his wildlife crime conviction mean that he is now barred from the club professional body?

Despite the pathetic ‘penalty’ (can you even call it that?), big kudos to the SSPCA for leading on this investigation, and well done also to COPFS for prosecuting; it’s not often we have cause to congratulate COPFS but on this occasion its deserved.

If you are out and about in the Scottish hills and glens and  come across a trapped raptor caught inside a crow cage trap (or any other trap for that matter), then you should call the SSPCA hotline immediately: 03000-999-999

SSPCA press release here

News article on Deadline News website here

COPFS press release here

See here for another blog on why Christie only got a telling off

STOP PRESS: One of our readers (thank you!) has contacted us to say he thinks this is the same estate that we blogged about last June (see here). Obviously we’re unable to confirm or refute this as the name of the estate in the June blog was kept a big secret, although the location is very similar!

“There does not seem to have been a welfare offence”, says SLE about crow video

The representative body of Scottish landowners, ‘Scottish Land and Estates’ (SLE), has made a statement on its website about the crow-beating incident recorded on video earlier this month (see here, here and here for background info).

SLE writes: “…and despite the impression given by the OneKind film there does not seem to have been a welfare offence…” (link to SLE statement here).

Maybe the SLE people watched a different video to the rest of us, or maybe they think the method of killing was acceptable? Their view is certainly not shared by the 1,993 signatories to the OneKind open letter to the Scottish Environment Minister (see here), and judging by the comments made by the general public on the OneKind website, a lot of people are understandably angry about what they saw in that video (see here to view the comments).

SLE goes on to warn its members about the potential for criminal damage being done to legal traps, cages and snares, and is encouraging them to report any suspicious activity to the police.

Blog readers are encouraged not to take the law into their own hands, but instead, report any suspicious-looking devices or suspected animal welfare incidents to the police and to the SSPCA. (We recomend reporting to both the police and the SSPCA so that the SSPCA can follow-up if the police fail to investigate). There is an excellent guide to help identify a legal trap from an illegal trap on the OneKind website, and we encourage everyone to take a look. The guide can be found here.

Whether you share the SLE’s view or not, a legal decision about whether the gamekeeper’s actions amounted to a welfare offence, or not, will never be known, as the Procurator Fiscal deemed the video inadmissable evidence, and this decision was later supported by the Lord Advocate. Although a private commentator on this blog has suggested that it was not the Fiscal’s role to deem the evidence inadmissable; he thinks that only a Sheriff has the authority to rule on such an issue. If there are any legal experts reading this (and we know there are a few of you!!) we’d be happy to hear your opinion.

Meanwhile, we’ll sit and wait for the Scottish Environment Minister’s response to the questions raised about wildlife crime reporting in Scotland.

No court proceedings for allegedly beating crows to death on scottish sporting estate

Following a comment made on this blog by an investigator from the animal charity OneKind, we would like to draw your attention to a blog on the OneKind website.

The blog, written by the OneKind field investigator, discusses the recent decision by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS), supported by the Lord Advocate, not to prosecute an individual (identified by OneKind as a ‘head gamekeeper’ on a Scottish sporting estate) for allegedly beating crows to death inside a crow trap. The explanation given for this decision not to prosecute is astounding.

OneKind blog here

Convicted gamekeeper Glenn Brown was a member of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation

Well finally, the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation has responded to one of the many emails we know were sent to them asking whether convicted gamekeeper Glenn Brown was one of their members (see here).

Here is the reply sent to one of our readers today:

From Ann Robinson-Ruddock (NGO) – “Thank you for your enquiry. I can confirm that Mr Brown was a member of the NGO but that following his convictions he has resigned“.

Fascinating. I guess we now know why the NGO has been reluctant to make a public statement on its website since Brown’s conviction in June 2011. Although to be fair, perhaps they’ve waited seven months to see whether his appeal, based on the assertion that he’d been ‘framed’ by the RSPB, was successful. We found out a week ago that his appeal  had failed, some might say spectacularly. Yet still the NGO has failed to make a public statement.

Wouldn’t you expect an organisation, that not only promotes itself as a member of the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime, but states on its website that “Our organisation has a strict disciplinary code  and does not tolerate those who bring the gamekeeping profession into disrepute“, to make a big song and dance about publicly condemning Brown’s criminal activities, and making sure that everyone knew he’d been expelled from the organisation? What we get instead is a delayed private response, that says Brown has resigned, and no mention of condemnation or expulsion.

Is there any wonder that conservationists are so cynical when it comes to trusting the sincerity of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation? At least when twice-convicted gamekeeper David Whitefield was outed as being a member of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association in December 2011, the SGA had the sense to immediately and publicly admit that he was a member, outrightly condemn his criminal activities and kick him out of the club (although the phrase they used was ‘suspended’ rather than ‘expelled for good’ – see here). UPDATE: the SGA has now reportedly given Whitefield “a life ban” (see here).

Come on National Gameepers’ Organisation – when the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association is making you look bad you know your public credibility rating is probably at rock bottom!

Thank you to the contributor who sent us the NGO email and thanks to everyone who contacted the NGO and pressurised them for an answer.

Is he, or isn’t he?

Last Tuesday (24 Jan), Derbyshire gamekeeper Glenn Brown lost his appeal against his conviction for seven offences under the Wildlife & Countryside and Animal Welfare Acts (see here).

On 25 January 2012, we asked whether Glenn Brown was a member (or now an ex-member) of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation (NGO), and encouraged readers to contact the NGO and ask for themselves. I don’t know about you, but the NGO has so far ignored the email we sent to them about it.

Interestingly, the NGO was very quick to post a statement on its website recently about the conviction of a Norfolk head keeper and his apprentice for animal cruelty offences (see here). The NGO stated that neither of the offenders were members of the NGO, and this statement was posted the day after the two were sentenced (sentenced on 11 Jan, NGO web statement posted 12 Jan 2012). UPDATE 8 FEB 2012: the NGO has now removed the statement on its website about the Norfolk head keeper and his apprentice.

So, why the silence over Glenn Brown? Was he a member of the NGO or not? It’s a simple enough question, isn’t it?

If anyone else wants to ask the NGO, you can contact them at: info@nationalgamekeepers.org.uk