Tag: crow trap

Dear Diary…

Here’s a rare opportunity to look into the world of  the ‘modern’ gamekeeper. These are extracts taken from a Scottish gamekeeper’s diary. We were shown these diaries by someone from within the keepering world who wishes to remain anonymous, for obvious reasons. Worryingly, the diary-writer is still currently employed as a full-time gamekeeper. We’ve split the entries into different years – the following is from 2008. See how many wildlife crime offences you can spot:

Thurs 3rd January: set baits in Glen S & right hill

Sat 5th January: John P came for rabbits & Alpha

Weds 16th January: Gassed fox at Black Brae Lower

Fri 25th January: Eggs out on Top Moor + rabbit for crows by Big Wood

Fri 1st February: Lifted eggs Top M & set out at edge of Middle.

Tues 5th February: Shot dog Glen S.

Mon 11th February: Lifted eggs Top M. Shot kestrel.

Tues 19th February: Baits out at Harry’s, rabbits & hares

Thurs 21st February: Pick up gins from Glen side. Got female peregrine.

Fri 29th February: Done traps at S Corner and more eggs out. Saw pair peregrines at Millers.

Sat 1st March: baits out with Jim at Middle. Missed a cock harrier. Staked pigeon at Millers.

Sun 2nd March: Got peregrines at Millers. Eggs out on Broadfield.

Tues 4th March: Got 2 buzzards, 2 rooks + 9 crows. Rabbit out for others.

Fri 7th March: Got a vixen at T Moor. Put out birds by low fence.

Sun 9th March: Eggs at Glen side again.

Weds 12th March: Eggs up, tracks seen. Done baits at Gordon’s. Sheep shot for midden 3.

Thurs 13th March: Got buzzard at Becks. More rabbits out. Alpha.

Sat 15th March: Picked ups crows & eggs Langsmere. Saw 2 harriers.

Tues 18th March: Set eggs JB & baits southside.

Weds 19th March: Got a cat on Red moor.

Thurs 20th March: Got SE owl & set 59 eggs Lower bank.

Sat 22nd March: 1 harrier at Langsmere. Merlins at Merv’s.

Mon 24th March: Snares at Glen side. 26 foxes so far.

Tues 25th March: Missed harrier at Langsmere. Baited Broadfield again.

Thurs 27th March: Got a badger with John S. He heard gos behind Big Wood.

Fri 28th March: Lifted eggs Lower bank. More set at Harry’s.

Mon 31st March: Crow cages out Big Wood.

Wed 2nd April: Harrier trap empty.

Thurs 3rd April: Pair eagles seen southside.

Fri 4th April: Put eggs T Moor. Shot rabbits for baits.

Sun 6th April: Crow cages done. Eggs checked.

Weds 9th April: Baits out Glen side. Tom collected pigeons.

Fri 11th April: Got buzzards at JB.

Tues 15th April: Gos in crow cage. Gave it to PL.

Fri 18th April: Baited traps & re-did snares.

Tues 22nd April: Eggs & hares out in the Sloughs.

Sun 27th April: Eggs lifted Sloughs.

Fri 2nd May: Put out more baits.

Sat 3rd May: Pigeons staked upper side. Got tiercel.

Weds 7th May: Set eggs.

Thurs 15th May: Put baits out at Bothy.

Sat 17th May: 3 buzzards in crow cage. Re-set.

Thurs 22nd May: Two Peres at Glen side. Got one.

Weds 28th May: Eggs lifted more baits out. Rabbit gone at Bothy.

Mon 2nd June: Set pheasant eggs at Big Wood. Did crow traps.

Sun 8th June: Litter of foxes gassed behind GateBridge.

Fri 13th June: Partridges into pen.

Mon 23rd June: Put eggs out Broadfield.

Weds 2nd July: Gassed another litter with Paul at Stebb’s.

Fri 1st August: Got a short eared owl. Lifted eggs Broadfield.

Tues 5th August: Moved crow cages to RT.

Sun 10th August: Spar caught. Trap re-set.

Fri 12th Sept: 42 brace at Sam’s but harrier seen.

Fri 26th Sept: New snares out.

Thurs 2nd Oct: Two eagles seen Glen S. 1 buzzard in crow trap at T Moor.

Tues 7th Oct: Hare baits out Langsmere.

Thurs 16th Oct: Shot sheep for midden 3.

Mon 20th Oct: Pigeons 5pm

Weds 22nd Oct: Shot a kestrel at Sam’s.

Fri 31st Oct: Merlin pair done North Bothy.

Sat 8th Nov: 6 pigeons put out Big Wood.

Tues 25th Nov: Baits out with Paul.

Fri 19th Dec: Put grouse on T Moor.

Photo: clam trap – why haven’t these been banned?

This is a photograph of a clam trap, also known as a snapper trap, butterfly trap and Larsen mate trap. They are used to trap corvids, although obviously the traps are indiscriminate and can also be used to catch raptors and other protected species. We’ve recently blogged about clam traps and the controversy over whether they are a legal or an illegal trap (see here).

The clam trap photographed here shows a slight variation of use. Usually the trap will be held open by a false perch that collapses when weight is applied (e.g. when a bird lands on it) which causes the trap to snap shut. In this photo the false perch is absent and instead, the trap is set to snap shut when weight is applied to the base (e.g. when a bird lands on the bait).

It’s quite incredible that SNH has not yet banned the use of these traps on welfare grounds. Just look at the photograph. Imagine if a large raptor (e.g. buzzard, kite, goshawk, eagle) is caught in one of these things. Apart from the injuries that could be caused to the bird when the trap snaps shut (they are designed to shut with speed and force so it’s highly probable that the bird’s wings will still be open and thus caught in the jaws of the trap as it snaps shut), the trapped bird then has to endure up to 24 hours inside this cage before it is checked by the trap operator. Would it be able to move inside the trap? Does it have a perch? Does it have water? Does it have shelter? All these are basic requirements covering the use of crow cage traps and Larsen traps where a decoy bird is in use. Why should a clam trap be exempt from these welfare requirements? Is it because there isn’t a decoy bird in use? What about the welfare requirements of the trapped bird, whether it be a target or a non-target species? It’s probably fair to say that it would be stressful for any large raptor to be caught inside one of these things, whether it’s injured or not, and to be trapped like that for up to 24 hours? That’s assuming the trap operator bothers to do the 24 hour check. In our view it fails on all welfare considerations. The general licences used to permit the use of crow traps also explicitly ‘do not permit the use of any form of spring-over trap’. What’s this then if it isn’t a form of spring-over trap? Some organisations have argued that it isn’t a form of spring-over trap…no prizes for guessing who that was.

Unsurprisingly, the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association supports the use of these traps (see here and here) as does Scottish Land and Estates [formerly known as SRPBA] (see here).

Whilst we all wait for SNH to make a decision on the legality of clam traps….if you see one of these traps you are advised to report it immediately to the police, SSPCA and RSPB. As with the other crow cage traps, the clam trap should have an identification code attached along with the telephone number of the local Police Wildlife Crime Officer. See here for a discussion on the legalities of other crow cage traps and what to do when you find one.

Photo: hiding the evidence

This is a photo of a dead buzzard inside a hole. How did it get there? Did the person who illegally killed the buzzard stuff it inside the hole to hide the evidence from casual passers-by? Or did the buzzard crawl inside the hole to die of natural causes? Yep, that must be it. Didn’t 13 of them do the same thing on a Scottish sporting estate a few years ago? Interesting that they all chose rabbit holes within close proximity to a crow cage trap. Oh and then there were the gunshot wounds…

Red kites have also been known to do it, funnily enough on another Scottish sporting estate. First they removed their wing tags, placed them in a hole and then covered the hole with moss. Then they severed their own legs, placed those in holes and also covered the holes in moss. Remarkable.

Wriggling out of vicarious liability?

Regular blog readers will be well aware that the concept of vicarious liability in relation to raptor persecution became enacted in Scotland on January 1st 2012 as part of the WANE Act. For new readers, some background can be found here. Vicarious liability has had its critics but until the first test case in court, nobody really knows just how strong, or weak, the new legislation will prove to be.

An interesting comment about vicarious liability was received on the blog at the end of last week; it suggests legal loopholes may be being exploited to avoid possible conviction. Given the interest in VL, we’ve decided to re-post the comment here. Thanks to Steve from OneKind for submitting it:

“Information gathered by Onekind suggests how some estate owners may try to avoid vicarious liability in the future by sending their game keepers on all the trapping and best practice courses there are going. According to our intelligence, top lawyers are being hired to travel around the country lecturing to gamekeepers on the law related to wildlife crime. Our information suggests that the idea behind this action, being taken by landowners and worked on by these top Lawyers, is that if a wildlife crime were to occur on their land by one of their keepers then the landowner can say that he put his keeper through the relevant courses and that he doesn’t know why the keeper did what he did. They hope that this will be enough to persuade the court that they were not complicit with the crime carried out on their land. Further information we have acquired tells us that a well-known land owner has been urging other landowners to take this idea on and which will probably be up and running properly within the next few months“.

I guess we’ll wait and see whether this defence is used if/when charges of vicarious liability are ever brought against anyone. It’s an interesting one because what they are allegedly proposing to do is not illegal, but its hardly in the spirit of moving towards the elimination of raptor persecution from the game-shooting industry, is it? In its defence, some will probably argue that we should all be thankful that gamekeepers are receiving such excellent training, but some may argue that some of the training is far from excellent. For example, OneKind has concerns about the adequacy of the snare training courses and suggests there may be an ulterior motive for running them (see here).

The use of legal loopholes to avoid possible conviction is a well-known tactic in many areas of crime, not just wildlife crime, although wildlife crime does have its fair share of examples. A recent one was reported in a newspaper at the beginning of July (sorry, no URL available) concerning the case of a gamekeeper on the Airlie Estate at Kirriemuir, Angus. He was accused of alleged criminal activity after the discovery of three buzzards inside a crow cage trap. However, he was acquitted after Sheriff Kevin Veal decided that the keeper was not given proper information about why he was being interviewed by an SSPCA inspector and a Tayside Police wildlife crime officer. Some lawyers are very good at their jobs.

It certainly pays to employ a professional lawyer rather than a pretend one. An employee from a very well-known organisation recently sent an email to a group (no, not us!) who publish the names of convicted gamekeepers and other wildlife criminals on their website. The email suggested that certain names should be removed from the website because the convictions were considered spent. The email explained the relevant law under which the names should be removed and went into some detail about how the law applied. The employee signed off with an impressive number of letters after their name, including LLB (a law degree). Uncannily, the information that the impressively-qualified employee wrote about this particular law bore an incredibly close resemblance to a Wikipedia entry on the same subject. Hmm, not quite so impressive now!

Traps in our countryside: a walker’s guide

Thanks to Steve from the animal protection charity OneKind who has advised that his 2010 article, ‘Traps in our countryside: a walker’s guide’ has now been updated.

This excellent illustrated guide provides detailed information for the general public on how to distinguish a legal trap from an illegal trap. The updated version also includes information about a new trap which is known by several common names: clam trap, snapper trap, butterfly trap and Larsen mate trap. This particular trap is causing controversy: the game-shooting industry argues it is legal and safe whereas others strongly disagree and some have even suggested its use could be an offence under animal welfare legislation, although this has yet to be tested in a court of law. It is understood that SNH is still consulting about the lawfulness of this trap and more information should be forthcoming in the near future (see here).

The SGA’s views on the clam trap can be read here and here. A copy of their consultation response to SNH on the use of clam traps can be read here.

A copy of the SRPBA’s (now called Scottish Land and Estates) consultation response to SNH on the use of clam traps can be read here. Its interesting to compare this with the SGA’s response – copy and paste, anyone?

Click here to read OneKind’s updated article – Traps in our Countryside: a walker’s guide.

Click here to read our recent article – Crow Traps: what you should know.

Inadmissable evidence: double standards for wildlife crime offences?

In February we blogged about the Crown Office & Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) decision not to accept the video evidence showing a head gamekeeper apparently bludgeoning crows to death with a stick inside a crow cage trap on a Scottish sporting estate (see here). The video had been filmed by a field officer from the charity OneKind who, by chance, happened to be in the right place at the right time (or the wrong place at the wrong time, depending on your view).

OneKind appealed against the COPFS decision not to initiate court proceedings against the gamekeeper but the Lord Advocate ruled that the COPFS decision would stand. In response, OneKind submitted a petition to the Scottish Government, signed by over 2,000 members of the public who were disgusted by what they’d seen in the video. OneKind asked the Scottish Environment Minister, Stewart Stevenson, for greater clarity on what is / isn’t considered admissable evidence in wildlife crime cases.

Here’s his reply:

“….the Scottish Government believes it is vital to all our efforts in tackling wildlife crime, for members of the public who come across anything suspicious to report what they have seen to the police.

I would however note that there is a difference between cases where members of the public come across evidence that seems to point to a wildlife crime, and those cases where a person who is employed as, or is acting in some capacity as, a wildlife crime investigator, reports such evidence. It is for the Crown Office to decide on how a court would deal with evidence in either of those cases, and their decision on whether to prosecute a case is final”.

See here for the full update on the crow-killing incident provided by OneKind.

So, what have we learned? If you’re a member of the public who doesn’t really know what you’re looking at, or how to record evidence that might be crucial in a subsequent prosecution, then your ‘evidence’ will probably be admissable. However, if you’re someone who knows exactly what you’re looking at and has been trained in the best techniques of evidence collection and preservation, then your evidence will probably be inadmissable.

And the logic in that is….what, exactly? Are there any other areas of criminal law where these double standards apply? (This is a genuine question – we don’t know the answer but would like to hear from anyone who can enlighten us and help us to understand these rules).

Is it any wonder our wildlife crime conviction rates (and especially for raptor persecution incidents) are so pathetically low? How many more legal obstacles are going to be placed in the way of bringing these criminals to justice?

Yet another golden eagle mysteriously ‘disappears’

Last month we blogged about the ‘disappearance’ of a satellite-tagged golden eagle (see here). Now 22 days later we’re blogging about another one. Isn’t it strange how many UK satellite-tagged raptors go ‘missing’; not just golden eagles, but white-tailed eagles, hen harriers and red kites too. Wonder how these figures compare with tagged raptors in other parts of the world?

The last signal from the latest young golden eagle (#32857) to go ‘missing’ was received on May 11, just to the north-east of the Cairngorms National Park (see here).

Was it just a satellite tag failure and the eagle is still alive and well? Possibly.  Did it die of natural causes? Possibly. Was it poisoned? Possibly. Was it shot? Possibly. Was it caught inside a crow cage trap and bludgeoned to death? Possibly. Will we ever find out? Possibly. If it is found to have been killed illegally, will the perpetrator be brought to justice? Probably not (see here for the ever-growing list of dead and/or missing eagles in recent years for which nobody has ever been prosecuted).

Somebody asked a question the other day and we’ve still not been able to provide an answer:

“What does it take to secure a conviction for killing an eagle in the UK?”.

We’ve heard all the excuses in the book, some valid, some not:

(i) The discovery of a poisoned eagle on a sporting estate isn’t enough to secure a conviction because either it could have been poisoned elsewhere and then flown to die at that location, or, it could have been ‘planted’ on the estate by the anti-game-shooting lobby (according to claims made by various gamekeepers over the years although without any actual evidence).

(ii) The discovery of a poisoned eagle lying next to a poisoned bait on a sporting estate isn’t enough to secure a conviction because it’s virtually impossible to identify which individual gamekeeper laid the bait, especially when they all deny it.

(iii) The discovery of a poisoned eagle and a stash of the same poison found on premises on the same sporting estate, and an admission from an individual gamekeeper that he had sole access to the poison isn’t enough to secure a conviction because….well, we don’t know the answer to that one, you’d have to ask COPFS.

(iv) The discovery of a poisoned eagle and a stash of the same poison found in vehicles and traces of it on knives and gamebags on the same estate isn’t enough to secure a conviction because….we don’t know the answer to that one either – ask COPFS.

(v) What if somebody was filmed laying out a poisoned bait and was then later filmed returning to remove the eagle poisoned by that bait? The film evidence would probably be ruled inadmissable because the cameraman was operating ‘covertly’ (i.e. without the landowner’s permission!).

(vi) What if a gamekeeper was found with a dead eagle in the back of his vehicle, and the eagle had injuries consistent with being caught in an illegal spring trap (e.g. broken legs) and having had its head caved in with a blunt object (e.g. smashed skull)? This wouldn’t be enough to secure a conviction because the keeper would probably claim he had just found the dead bird and was taking it home to report it to the authorities. At best he’d be charged with ‘possession’.

The shocking truth is, there has never been a successful prosecution for the illegal killing of an eagle in the UK, in spite of the sometimes overwhelmingly compelling evidence in some cases. So, just what does it take for someone to be convicted of killing an eagle in the UK?

Scottish gamekeepers in court: latest

Two cases against two Scottish gamekeepers have been heard recently at Perth Sheriff Court:

David Campbell, head gamekeeper at Edradynate Estate, Perthshire, is charged with various offences relating to firearms and explosives (see here). His case has been continued for an intermediate diet on 26 July 2012. At that hearing it will be decided whether the case proceeds to trial on 20 August 2012. This is an interesting one for several reasons which will become clear in due course.

Jonathan Graham, apparently a gamekeeper at Glenlyon Estate, Perthshire, is charged with three offences under the Wildlife & Countryside Act (Section 5 (1) (b) relating to the prohibition of certain methods of killing or taking wild birds. The hearing was continued today until 27 June 2012. Those of you interested in the topical subject of crow cage traps (see here) might want to follow this case.

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.