Tag: crow trap

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.

Here comes 2013….the year of natural scotland

imagesHappy Hogmanay!

Tomorrow marks the start of another Scottish government themed year: The Year of Natural Scotland, in which we’re encouraged to celebrate Scotland’s stunning natural beauty and biodiversity. Good job it wasn’t this year’s theme as there might have been some red faces in the government:

  • SGA gamekeeper Whitefield sentenced for poisoning four buzzards (he already had an earlier wildlife crime conviction). His sentence this time? 100 hours community service.
  • Scottish gamekeeper McLachlan, convicted for possession of the banned poison Carbofuran. Fined £635.
  • Scottish gamekeeper Barrie lost an appeal for his sentence of £520 for illegal possession and control of a wild bird.
  • COPFS choosing not to prosecute a Scottish gamekeeper who had been filmed beating birds to death with a stick inside a crow cage trap.
  • Scottish gamekeeper Christie convicted for wildlife crimes relating to the illegal use of a crow cage trap. His sentence? An admonishment (a telling off).
  • Scottish gamekeeper Graham convicted for allowing a buzzard to starve to death inside a crow cage trap. Fined £450.
  • Scottish gamekeeper McKellar convicted for possession of banned poison. Fined £1,200.
  • Scottish gamekeeper Scobie convicted for using banned poison. Fined £270.
  • A satellite-tagged golden eagle mysteriously ‘disappeared’ in the Angus glens.
  • A satellite-tagged golden eagle mysteriously ‘disappeared’ to the North East of the Cairngorms National Park.
  • Peregrine chicks mysteriously ‘disappeared’ from a nest site in Dumfries & Galloway.
  • A golden eagle was found dead, poisoned in Lochaber.
  • A golden eagle was found dead in suspicious circumstances on the Isle of Harris. Still awaiting results.
  • A satellite-tagged golden eagle mysteriously ‘disappeared’ in the Monadhliaths.
  • A poisoned raven, crow, and three poisoned baits were found in the Borders.
  • A satellite-tagged golden eagle was found dead near a lay-by in Aberdeenshire. Its injuries and its sat tag data suggested it had been illegally trapped on an Angus grouse moor and then dumped during the night and left to die.
  • A golden eagle was found shot and critically injured on a grouse moor in Dumfries & Galloway.
  • Barry, the sat-tagged hen harrier from Langholm mysteriously ‘disappeared’.
  • Buzz, the sat-tagged buzzard mysteriously ‘disappeared’ in the Angus glens. (More on this case in the New Year).
  • Willow, a sat-tagged marsh harrier mysteriously ‘disappeared’ in Galloway.
  • A hen harrier was found shot dead on an Aberdeenshire grouse moor.

These are just a few of the ‘highlights’ from Scotland this year – there are a few more that we can’t yet report but we will in the New Year. And of course this list doesn’t include other confirmed incidents from other parts of these fair isles such as England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic; a list that includes shot and poisoned sea eagles, buzzards, kites, harriers, peregrines and sparrowhawks. Nor does it include the incidents that went undiscovered.

We’ll be blogging quite a lot about the Year of Natural Scotland, which hopefully won’t be just a banner-waving exercise by the government but an opportunity for them to put their money where their mouths are. You don’t think so? No, neither do we. Why should 2013 be any different from the previous three decades of ineffective action?

A hint of what’s to come is the revelation that the theme will be highlighted during several events throughout the year. Two particular locations caught our attention: the Scone Game Fair and the Moy Game Fair.

The Scone Game Fair is of course organised by the GWCT. That’s the same GWCT that has recently asked for the addition of buzzards and sparrowhawks to the General Licences (that means they want permission to kill them…we’ll be blogging about that shortly). It’s also the same Game Fair that has previously attracted sponsorship from some very, how shall we put it, ‘surprising’ sources.

The Moy Game Fair is held on the Moy Estate near Inverness. If you’re unaware of this place, try googling it.

Thanks for all your interest and support in 2012…we’ll see you soon. Sláinte!

This golden eagle was found shot, critically injured &left to die on a Scottish grouse moor. Photo SSPCA
This golden eagle was found shot, critically injured and left to die on a Scottish grouse moor. Photo SSPCA

Gamekeeper’s acquittal upheld by appeal court

A Scottish gamekeeper whose trial collapsed earlier this year on a legal technicality has had his acquittal upheld by the Appeal Court.

Anstruther Peter Smith, a beat-keeper on Airlie Estate near Kirriemuir, Angus, was originally charged with several alleged wildlife crime offences after three buzzards were discovered in a crow cage trap at Wellbank Wood in March 2011. It had been argued that allegedly the trap didn’t meet the standards required under the General Licence. Two buzzards were immediately released but one was treated for several days before release for injuries believed to have been sustained by the buzzard’s attempts to escape from the trap.

The case went to trial at Forfar Sheriff Court in June 2012, where Smith’s defence agent argued that an SSPCA inspector’s evidence should be ruled inadmissable on the basis that the defendant’s interview was ‘unfair’. Sheriff Kevin Veal agreed and Smith was acquitted.

The Crown appealed this decision but an appeal committee (Lady Paton, Lady Smith and Lord Wheatley) recently upheld it and refused the appeal. The full details of the case and the decision can be read here.

An overview article in the Courier here.

An injured buzzard inside a crow cage trap

Purdey Awards: “celebrating greatness”?

The annual Purdey Awards for Game and Conservation were established to celebrate those who achieve most in game conservation, according to the Purdey Awards website (here). These awards are viewed as the game-shooting industry’s most prestigious, giving recognition to those ‘who do most to help our flora and fauna, by improving biodiversity and developing better land management‘.

The 2012 Purdey Award winners were recently announced. We were particularly interested in the ‘Highly Commended’ category:

“Brian Kaye of Redmyre Farm Shoot of Invergowrie, near Dundee, has been highly commended for his work in creating a high quality farm shoot and for enhancing the landscape and natural environment. Mr Kaye has not only dramatically improved the habitats and biodiversity for a wide variety of game birds and plant life, but has also demonstrated how shooting goes hand in hand with conservation. The award is made in recognition of outstanding work over 20 years in establishing an exemplary shoot over 320 acres of the Sidlaw Hills“.

Surely not the same Brian Kaye who owns Redmyre Estate near Invergowrie (according to the East of Scotland Association for Wildfowling and Conservation: see here)? Nah, it couldn’t possibly be. A gamekeeper on Redmyre Estate was convicted in 2010 of shooting dead a buzzard and for possession of the banned poisons Carbofuran and Alpha-chloralose (see here, here, and especially here).

Other ‘greats’ that have been celebrated with Purdey Award wins include:

Geoff Eyre, the sporting tenant on Howden Moor (2005 Purdey Gold Award). In 2011, the gamekeeper on Howden Moor was convicted of a series of wildlife crimes (see here).

Jimmy Shuttlewood, the head gamekeeper on Snilesworth Estate (2005 Purdey Special Award).  In 2008, Shuttlewood and two other gamekeepers were convicted of a series of wildlife crimes (see here).

Lochindorb Estate (2008 Purdey Gold Award). In 2010 a dead sea eagle that had been found on the estate mysteriously disappeared just before the police arrived (see here). In 2011, the trial against two Lochindorb gamekeepers began, accused of illegally snaring mountain hares. The case against one gamekeeper was dropped earlier this year; the trial against the other gamekeeper will continue in January 2013 (see here).

SNH to publish consultation responses

snh_logoFollowing yesterday’s blog and the request to SNH to publish all the consultation responses relating to the 2013 General Licences (see here), SNH have just sent us the following tweet:

“We’re currently preparing the information for publication“.

Even if SNH redacts names in the documents, it should be obvious which response belongs to which group.

Credit where it’s due – thank you, SNH, we look forward to seeing this published.

Thank you and well done to all of you who publicised this request on Twitter and Facebook, and especially to those of you who made the effort and emailed SNH. We’ll blog again about the consultation responses once they’ve been published.

SNH announce changes to 2013 general licences

snh_logoIn October we blogged about how SNH was preparing to make changes to the 2013 General Licences via a public consultation process (see here).

They’ve now just published their proposed changes and by the looks of things, they’ve ignored almost every single recommendation except those made by the game-shooting lobby.

Their letter to consultees, in which they outline their proposed changes, can be read here.

Many concerns remain unaddressed, and particularly about the use of crow cage traps under the General Licence, including trap design (welfare issues), year-round use (as opposed to seasonal use), uncontrolled positioning of these traps, ineffective regulation of crow trap users and ineffective monitoring of crow cage trap use.

There’s one particularly strange ammendment:

“Requirement for persons to have read and understood conditions: We will remove the requirement for people to have read the licences before using them. New licenses will require users to ensure that they have understood the conditions“.

What’s the significance of removing the requirement for people to have read the licences before using them? This sounds like the introduction of a very dodgy legal loophole…we wonder who made this recommendation to SNH?

The controversial clam trapHowever, the biggest concern is that SNH has officially authorised the use of ‘clam’-type traps (see above), even though they are fully aware of concerns that these traps are likely to cause injury to non-target species (e.g. see here and here). SNH acknowledges these concerns and proposes to “commission research in 2013 that will examine how these traps are currently being used“. Why authorise a trap before you’ve carried out research to assess the potential damage that trap could cause? By authorising its use without being able to define the trap, SNH has just opened up the floodgates for gamekeepers and other users to put out any trap, call it a clam-type trap, hang an ID tag on it and it’ll be legal. How will SNH control trap size, height, spring tension? It’s nothing short of disgraceful that these traps have been authorised without a proper, independent assessment of their use. SNH say they will work with the representative bodies of the trap users as part of their research. Brilliant – do they really think those users are going to tell them when they’ve caught a non-target species? Or when they’ve ‘accidentally’ injured or killed a non-target species? You only have to read the evidence given in the current hare-snare trial to know the answer to that.

What a total shambles. What we’d like to see now is a complete list of ALL the consultation responses that SNH received for the 2013 general licences. Why? So we can assess whose recommendations SNH has listened to, and whose have been ignored. SNH has not made these consultation responses available in the public domain, but it’s common practice for any public authority conducting a consultation to do so (just look at the Environmental Audit Committee consultation on wildlife crime – every single consultation response was made publicly available).

We urge our blog readers to write to Robbie Kernahan, SNH Head of Wildlife Operations, and ask for ALL of the 2013 general licence consultation responses to be put on the SNH website. Here’s his email address: licensing@snh.gov.uk

3 keepers face trial for alleged wildlife crimes on Morvich Estate, Sutherland

sheriff courtThanks to the contributor who sent us a recent copy of the following article published in the Press & Journal (dated 28 Nov 2012) -:

Three North men [all gamekeepers] will go on trial next year on charges of allegedly committing a string of wildlife offences on a Sutherland country estate.

None of the three accused appeared when their case was called at Dornoch Sheriff Court yesterday [Tues 27 Nov 2012] but their pleas were entered by their solicitors.

Mathew Johnston, 20 of Morvich House, Morvich Estate, Rogart, pleaded not guilty to the four charges against him, allegedly committed on the estate on February 16. The charges include that he set in place a snare which could have caused an animal coming into contact with it unnecessary suffering. He is also accused of having a dead wild bird, a barnacle goose, in his possession.

Jamie Neal, 37, of The Bothy, Morvich Estates, denied the five charges against him, which included failing to provide a suitable environment for nine crows for which he was responsible.

And the third accused, William Docharty, 57, of 10, Elizabeth Court, Dornoch, pleaded not guilty to the charge he faces that he set a snare which could have caused an animal coming into contact with it unnecessary suffering.

An intermediate court hearing was set for 18 February 2013 and a trial date for 19 March 2013.

RSPB Scotland: 2011 persecution report published

RSPB Scotland has just published its latest report, The Illegal Killing of Birds of Prey in Scotland in 2011. You probably won’t be surprised or shocked by the content, especially if you’ve read the previous 17 annual reviews. In fact, when you read this 18th review, you might get a strong sense of déjà vu.

It opens with a Foreword by Stuart Housden, Director of RSPB Scotland. Apart from the new photo, this foreword looks like a cut and paste job from the 2010 report, with a few words or sentences added or adjusted. To be fair, not much has changed since the 2010 report was published so perhaps he felt justified in repeating what he’d written the previous year.

Then there are RSPB Scotland’s strategic recommendations for addressing raptor persecution. Again, these show a remarkable similarity to the recommendations made in the 2010 report, and also in the 2009 report. The recommendations were / are still good and to see them repeated again is a useful indicator of how little progress has been made by those with the power to push them forward.

Next come the tables showing the confirmed and probable persecution incidents recorded by the RSPB during 2011. It’s these tables that the game-shooting lobby usually object too – they’re especially reluctant to accept the ‘probable’ incidents although to date, they’ve failed to provide a convincing argument to account for any of them.

The data in the 2011 tables demonstrate once again that illegal raptor persecution is widespread, with incidents reported in Perthshire, Angus, South Lanarkshire, Aberdeenshire, Dumfries-shire, East Ayrshire, Borders and Inverness-shire. We counted 15 very familiar-sounding locations within these regions, although there are a few notable absentees this time. Have they stopped their criminal activities or have they just got better at covering up? Time will tell.

Just focusing on the confirmed incidents, in total 17 incidents of deliberate poison abuse were confirmed during 2011, involving 20 victims: 7 buzzards, 4 red kites, 1 golden eagle, 2 peregrines, 2 ravens and 4 other bird species. Sixteen other illegal incidents relating to shooting, nest destruction, and the use of uncovered spring traps or cage traps were confirmed. The victims included 8 buzzards, 2 peregrines, 1 goshawk, 1 sparrowhawk, 2 kestrels and 1 short-eared owl. As in previous years, not all of these incidents were publicised at the time they occurred. It’s a continual disappointment that several years have to pass before the public learns of these appalling crimes.

Once again the occupations and interests of those convicted for illegal raptor persecution crime have been analysed (data from 2003-2011 inclusive). 87% of them were gamekeepers (7% pigeon racers, 3% pest controllers, 3% farmers).

The report includes an interesting case study of poisoned raptors that have been found in recent years on the Glen Kyllachy and Farr Estate near Inverness. Very little of this information has been previously published and certainly this is the first time these photographs have been published. It’s a shame it’s taken several years for the info and images to reach the public domain but nevertheless it’s very encouraging to see RSPB Scotland highlight these cases, especially as Northern Constabulary hasn’t bothered.

All in all the report makes for grim reading, but nobody should be surprised by that. We all owe a large debt of gratitude to the RSPB’s Investigations Team for meticulously collecting these data and especially for making them publically available.

TO DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE REPORT CLICK HERE

Here’s some media coverage:

RSPB Scotland press release here

BBC news article here

STV news article here

Herald Scotland article here

Scottish Gamekeepers Association: statement here

Scottish Land and Estates: nothing yet

@SNHMedia: “SNH report finds vast majority of gamekeepers highly qualified”. Link to this.

PAW Scotland: nothing yet

2013 general licence consultation: OneKind’s response

Last month we blogged about how SNH was preparing to make changes to the 2013 General Licences via a consultation process (see here).

General Licences are not exactly what they say on the tin – they’re general but there’s no approval process for anyone to have one. If you want to kill certain bird species using certain methods, you don’t need to demonstrate any qualification or competence or even have proven experience: you simply download a copy of a General Licence and as long as you’ve read it (or say you’ve read it) and understood the terms, you’re good to go. It’s strange that it’s even called a ‘licence’ given that the user doesn’t have to do anything special in order to get one.

There are very obvious concerns with this form of ‘licensing’, as well as the ‘licences’ themselves, and we’ve blogged about some of these concerns before (e.g. see here, here, here, here and here).

The consultation has now closed and we expect to see the ammended new ‘licences’ on the SNH website in early December. It would also be interesting to see copies of all the comments that had been made during the consultation process. Whether SNH will publish those remains to be seen.

One group that participated in the consultation process was the animal charity, OneKind. They’ve published their responses which can be read here. Well done indeed.

Clap Trap

SNH is seeking input as it prepares to make changes to the 2013 General Licences.

This is a welcome move. The 2012 General Licences are not really fit for purpose, to say the least. We’ve blogged before about certain aspects of these licences, particularly those relating to the use of crow cage traps (see Crow traps: what you should know Part 1 here, Part 2 here, and Part 3 here) as well as clam traps (see here and here).

However, when you have a look at the consultation letter put out by SNH (see here) you’ll notice that they’ve carefully avoided many of the most concerning issues.

To better understand some of these issues, please read Crow Traps: What you should know Part 2 (here is the link again). These issues include (but are not limited to) compliance (or not) with European environmental legislation; welfare concerns; poor trap design that allows indiscriminate species trapping; year-round use (as opposed to seasonal use); ineffective regulation of crow trap users; ineffective monitoring of crow trap use (i.e. number and species caught/killed); inability to identify an individual trap user; and a lovely get-out clause for any General Licence user with an unspent criminal conviction.

The highly contentious issue of the ‘clam trap’ (also known as ‘Larsen mate trap’, ‘snapper trap’ and ‘butterfly trap’) has been raised in this consultation, although SNH’s plans for how to deal with it are astonishing. They recognise that welfare concerns remain about the use of these traps, but instead of banning them until independent research shows they are safe to use, they’ve decided to continue their use and commission research on their use “shortly”. They do suggest that they’ll require clam trap users to notify them of intended use, but really, what’s the point of that, other than being able to identify users as potential participants in their future ‘evidence gathering’ exercise?

When you consider the high level of training and accreditation required by those who want to trap wild birds for scientific research (i.e. bird ringing) and compare this with the very low standards required for those who want to trap wild birds to kill them (sorry, ‘control them for conservation purposes’), you realise what a joke the current system is.

The consultation is open until 9th November 2012. You can fill in the form (here is the link again), or, if you think that there are important issues that haven’t been addressed on the consultation form, why not write directly to SNH and explain your concerns? Email your comments to Robbie Kernahan, Head of Wildlife Operations, SNH: licensing@snh.gov.uk

SNH plan to publish a revised suite of General Licences for 2013 by early December.