Tag: crow trap

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.

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.