Tag: Environment Minister

The gamekeeping myth of thriving raptors

courier2

There was a good letter published in The Courier a couple of days ago, in response to the Gift of Grouse propaganda that raptors are ‘thriving’ on grouse moors.

Sir, – A recent article by a game-keeping lobbyist painted a picture that all was well on our uplands and that birds of prey were thriving, especially on the Angus hills.

As a way of confirming this, keepers have been counting the number of flying raptors as a measure of this success.

Surely successful breeding birds of prey would be a better benchmark of their status?

I once had an osprey fly over my house but it does not nest in my garden.

Indeed, if it flies over some of the intensely keepered estates, especially on the eastern side of the Angus hills, they will have to keep flying.

Come April and May, the uplands here are host to numerous scarecrows, explosive gas guns, bird-scaring bangers and inflating figures attached to sirens.

Why?

Well, if you were a ground-nesting bird of prey like a hen harrier, all this racket would put you off breeding on the Angus hills; and they haven’t for 10 years.

Ironically, with the cacophony of noise ringing out night and day, you will see precious little else as curlew and golden plover, like the raptors, are forced to move on.

Recent truly scientific papers show that golden eagles, hen harriers and other raptors in the north-east Highlands are largely absent from these managed estates.

Indeed, hen harriers have suffered a catastrophic decline.

So concerned is the Scottish Government that Roseanna Cunningham, Cabinet Secretary for the environment, climate change and land reform, has commissioned a review regarding this.

The RSPB has derided this latest press release attempt at fooling the public as propaganda and make-believe.

The gamekeeping fraternity’s scientific report flies in the face of peer-reviewed scientific reports from Scottish National Heritage, the RSPB and others.

Perhaps not surprisingly, their scientific report is not in the public domain and so their outlandish claims cannot be verified.

David Mitchell.
6 Henry Street,
Kirriemuir.

END

Well done, David. Great to see blog readers spreading the word.

As a quick update, a summary scientific report of the bird surveys done at Invermark Estate in the Angus Glens has now been published. As expected, the report reveals that the grouse-shooting industry’s claims about ‘thriving’ raptors were not supported by the evidence, and the Gift of Grouse campaign had misled everyone (see here).

‘More evidence required’ before mountain hare culls are regulated, says Cabinet Secretary

More parliamentary questions about the mass slaughter of mountain hares have been asked recently, thanks to Alison Johnstone MSP (Scottish Green Party).

We were particularly interested in this one:

Question S5W-04501: Alison Johnstone, Lothian, Scottish Green Party. Date lodged: 4/11/2016.

To ask the Scottish Government what measures it is taking to ensure that estates adhere to voluntary restraint on large culls of mountain hare, as called for by the joint position taken by Scottish Natural Heritage, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and Scottish Land and Estates on large-scale culls of mountain hare to reduce louping ill, and what measures it is taking to monitor compliance with this policy.

Answered by Roseanna Cunningham (22/11/2016)

Scottish Natural Heritage is working with key stakeholders to improve transparency and understanding about the reasons why some moorland managers continue to wish to cull mountain hares and the numbers involved.

If evidence emerges that large-scale culls are continuing, the Scottish Government will consider the case for tightening regulation of this issue.

Dear god. ‘Working with stakeholders to improve transparency‘? Who’s she kidding, when the Convenor of the Cairngorms National Park Authority’s Planning Committee, Eleanor Mackintosh, is advising gamekeepers to hide the evidence of mountain hare culls, even though she denies it (see here) and the CNPA Convenor Peter Arygle denies it too (see here). How is hiding evidence improving transparency?!

We’ve been asking for transparency about the mass slaughter of mountain hares for some time. We asked some pretty simple questions back in March (see here) but so far, no response.

And why does the Scottish Government need more evidence anyway? Why isn’t the already-available evidence sufficient to show that large-scale culls are indeed continuing? And what type of evidence does the Scottish Government require before action is taken? Perhaps we should try the ‘I’ve seen it from my kitchen window‘ approach – seems to work in Westminster.

We’ve heard similar excuses about needing more evidence so many times before, usually in relation to an illegal raptor persecution case: e.g. ‘We won’t hesitate to take further action if deemed necessary’, but then when more evidence is produced, i.e. the corpse of yet another illegally-killed raptor, it’s never quite enough for the Government to deem that promised further action ‘necessary’. It’s just a never-ending cycle of ‘Next time we’ll do something’, until the next time comes and then the line is repeated, and then the next time and then the next time after that ad nauseam.

On the subject of what constitutes sufficient evidence, we’d recommend reading the latest article on the always thought-provoking ParksWatchScotland blog (see here). They’ve written an excellent piece called ‘What counts as evidence in our National Parks?’ in which they compare the frankly low grade ‘evidence’ recently used by the Scottish Government to introduce restrictive camping byelaws in the Loch Lomond & Trossachs National Park, with the high grade evidence of large-scale mountain hare culling that is seemingly insufficient to trigger the introduction of byelaws to prevent these mass culls in the Cairngorms National Park. The disproportionality is striking, as are the probable reasons behind it.

Review of European gamebird hunting regulatory systems due to be published shortly

The Scottish Government’s long-awaited review of the systems used to regulate gamebird hunting in other European countries is due to be published ‘shortly’.

This review was first commissioned two and a half years ago by former Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse, during a parliamentary debate on wildlife crime / raptor persecution, way back in May 2014 (see here).

Nothing happened.

Seventeen months later in December 2015, Claudia Beamish MSP lodged a parliamentary question about the lack of progress:

Question S4W-28992 (date lodged: 16/12/15):

To ask the Scottish Government when it will carry out the review of gamebird licensing and legislation agreed by Paul Wheelhouse in May 2014; who has been appointed to conduct the review, and when it expects the report to be published.

Answered by Aileen McLeod MSP (the then Environment Minister) 11/1/2016:

Tender documents were issued by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) on 11 December 2015, inviting bids from contractors to carry out the review of gamebird licensing and legislation in other European countries. The deadline for quotes to be submitted to SNH is 20 January 2016. We expect work on the review to commence in early 2016 and for the report to be published in autumn 2016.

Nothing appeared in the public domain so in August 2016 Claudia Beamish MSP submitted another parliamentary question:

Question S5W-02043 (date lodged: 18/8/16):

To ask the Scottish Government, further to the answer to question S4W-28992 by Aileen McLeod on 11 January 2016, on what date the gamebird licensing and legislation report will be published.

Answered by Roseanna Cunningham MSP (current Cabinet Secretary on Environment) 25/8/16:

Further to the answer to question S4W-28992 by Aileen McLeod on 11 January 2016, the review of gamebird licensing and legislation is currently being finalised and will be published in Autumn 2016.

Still nothing, so in October Mark Ruskell MSP lodged a parliamentary question:

Question S5W-04342 (date lodged 31/10/16):

To ask the Scottish Government when the Scottish Natural Heritage review of gamebird licensing systems in other European countries will be published.

Answered by Roseanna Cunningham MSP (Cabinet Secretary on Environment) 8/11/16:

The Scottish Government commissioned Scottish Natural Heritage to carry out a review of gamebird hunting in selected other countries. This is currently being finalised for submission to Scottish Ministers and we anticipate that it will be published shortly.

It is our understanding that the authors of this report submitted their findings to SNH six months ago, in May 2016. According to the parliamentary answers above, the report was being ‘finalised’ in August and was still being ‘finalised’ in November! Let’s hope that whatever ‘finalisations’ are being done (whatever that means), they are done quickly.

There is great anticipation amongst conservationists to see this report published. The findings are expected to demonstrate just how poorly regulated gamebird hunting is in Scotland in comparison to the more progressive policies implemented in other European countries. If that is what the report’s findings show, this will add considerable pressure on the Scottish Government to introduce a licensing scheme. This report, combined with the review on satellite tagged raptor data (due to be completed in March 2017) should make for a very interesting Spring period.

‘Missing’ hen harrier Brian: official responses from Environment Secretary & Cairngorms National Park Authority

Two days after the news that young satellite-tagged hen harrier Brian has gone ‘missing’ in the Cairngorms National Park (see here), we now have official responses from Environment Secretary Roseanna Cunningham and from the CEO of the Cairngorms National Park Authority, Grant Moir.

brian-july16_jennyweston

Well done to journalist Christopher Foote (STV news) for publicising this incident (here) and for managing to get these official responses.

Let’s start with the response from the Environment Cabinet Secretary:

“I take this issue very seriously and it shows the need to establish whether the disappearance of these birds is indicative of criminal activity. 

It is clearly suspicious, but we must ensure that a robust statistical analysis of all the data from over 200 tagged birds supports any conclusion. 

I will consider what action to take in the light of the full evidence, and I am not ruling out any options.”

Well, at least she didn’t trot out the usual Ministerial line that we’ve heard repeatedly from successive Environment Ministers over a period of several years (e.g. “I’m very disappointed” and “I will not hesitate to bring in further measures if they are deemed necessary“). And at least she has acknowledged this incident, which is better than remaining silent about it. But other than that, this is just yet another holding statement.

We’re partly sympathetic to her position. She has recently instructed a review of raptor satellite tag data (which we fully support) but that review is not expected to be finished until March 2017. That six month delay is not her fault, and nor is it the fault of the review’s authors. They need to conduct a thorough interrogation and analysis of the data and their methods will need to stand up to potential legal scrutiny depending on the Secretary’s subsequent decision to act. We’re well aware (as Roseanna will be) that the well-financed grouse shooting industry will take whatever legal action it can to prevent any Governmental challenge to its current practices, so this review does have to be robust and that will, inevitably, take time. On that basis, a holding statement at this stage is probably the best we could expect.

However, we’re also partly unsympathetic to Roseanna’s position. As we’ve said before, many, many, times, the evidence of criminal activity on grouse moors is already overwhelming and has been available for several decades. It has built and built and built. We don’t need to wait for yet another study to reach the same conclusion. It’s hugely frustrating that we have to put up with the constant stalling tactics from the Government before any action is taken. Again, Roseanna Cunningham isn’t entirely responsible for the stalling – every other Environment Minister has played their part in that, and some more than others – but eventually, a point is reached where the stalling and inaction is no longer tolerable.

Let’s now look at the statement from Grant Moir, CEO of the Cairngorms National Park Authority:

“We are working with Police Scotland, SNH and Scottish Government to look at next steps around wildlife crime in the Cairngorms National Park.”

Really, Grant? 48 hours of thinking time and that’s the best you can offer? You needn’t have bothered. No, really, you needn’t have bothered.

Photograph of hen harrier Brian by Jenny Weston

Too embarrassing for words

Following this morning’s news that satellite-tagged hen harrier Brian has ‘disappeared’ in the Cairngorms National Park just a few weeks after fledging (see here), we’ve been waiting to see what the Environment Secretary and the Cairngorms National Park Authority had to say about it, and more importantly, what they intended to do about it.

This won’t take long……they’ve said absolutely nothing at all.

All as silent as Brian’s satellite tag.

Nothing on the CNPA news website, nothing on their twitter feed, nothing on the PAW Scotland website, and nothing on the Environment Secretary’s twitter feed.

Sorry Brian, you’re just too embarrassing for words.

brian-july16_jennyweston

UPDATE 29 September 2016: Official response from Environment Secretary and CEO of Cairngorms National Park Authority (here)

Tackling raptor persecution features in Scot Gov’s work plan 2016-17

scotgov-logoThe Scottish Government has published its work plan for 2016-2017 (see here).

We are pleased to see that tackling wildlife crime, and specifically raptor persecution, is a feature (see page 56).

“We must protect the environment from those who seek to damage it for personal gain. We will increase the penalties for wildlife crime and consider the creation of new sentencing guidelines in line with the recommendations from the Wildlife Crimes Penalties Review Group“.

Good. Penalties for wildlife crimes have generally been at the lower end of the scale and penalties issued for similar crimes have been inconsistently applied. We fully support the recommendations of the Wildlife Crimes Penalties Review Group, published in November last year (see here) and we look forward to the Scottish Government getting on with implementing them.

However, increasing the tariffs available to the judiciary will count for little if the problems of early-stage enforcement (e.g. Police under-resourcing, the slow pace of gathering evidence and poor follow-up investigations – see here) are also not addressed. Regardless of the punitive value of a sentence, the deterrent effect will be limited if an offender knows that the chances of being caught and receiving the punishment are minimal.

It seems that the Scottish Government has recognised this in the work plan:

“Police Scotland will create a new Wildlife Crime Investigation Unit to support the existing network of wildlife crime officers in complex investigations“.

We tentatively welcome this news, although of course much will depend on the details of how this new unit will function. It’s all very well being able to say you’ve got a special wildlife crime unit, but if it’s as semi-dysfunctional as the current National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU – very effective at dealing with the international trade in endangered species but wholly ineffective at dealing with raptor persecution) then there’s little point to its existence.

It’s also a little bit worrying that there is no mention of increased investigatory powers for the SSPCA to help Police Scotland tackle wildlife crime. Is that a sign of the Government’s direction on this issue? Time will tell.

Also included in the work plan is this:

“In order to safeguard vulnerable species from illegal persecution, we will carry out a review of prevention measures including the operation of the Partnership Against Wildlife Crime [PAW Scotland] and supporting Police Scotland in their work to target wildlife crime hotspots. We are prepared to introduce legislation where necessary“.

We very much welcome a review of how PAW Scotland operates. We have been highly critical of this so-called ‘partnership’, particularly the PAW Raptor sub-group, which is dominated by land management groups, some of whom are tainted (indirectly, by association) with raptor persecution. Some of these groups consistently misrepresent raptor crime data and refuse to accept that persecution is an on-going problem. As a result, the PAW Raptor group has achieved very little in terms of tangible results and we hope this review will recognise the group’s failings and act accordingly.

We would welcome the Government’s claim that it is ‘prepared to introduce legislation where necessary‘ but we’ve heard it so many times before that it’s now just seen as empty rhetoric. If they’d just get on with it we’d be 100% supportive.

How to stop the illegal persecution of raptors in the Cairngorms National Park

Yesterday we blogged about the illegal persecution of birds of prey in the Cairngorms National Park (CNP) and how, 13 years after the Park was first established, persecution continues (see here).

Some (but definitely not all) the grouse moor managers within the CNP are running rings around the Park Authority (CNPA), and have been doing so for years: Golden eagles poisoned, golden eagles ‘disappearing’, white-tailed eagles ‘disappearing’, white-tailed eagle nests felled, hen harriers shot, breeding hen harriers in catastrophic decline, goshawks shot, goshawk nests being attacked, peregrines shot, peregrine nest sites burnt out, breeding peregrines in long-term decline, buzzards poisoned, buzzards shot, red kites poisoned, short-eared owls shot, poisoned baits laid out, illegally-set traps, and mountain hares massacred. All within the Cairngorms National Park, a so-called haven for Scottish wildlife. It’s scandalous.

Lad HH

So what has the Cairngorms National Park Authority been doing about all this? To date, they’ve adopted the softly, softly partnership approach, which, to be fair, is a reasonable starting point. But this approach relies on ALL the ‘partners’ pulling together in the same direction; it’s not going to work if some of the ‘partners’ don’t or won’t comply with the law (i.e. not killing protected birds of prey).

We’ve seen the Cairngorms Nature Action Plan, a five-year initiative which included the aim of restoring the full community of raptor species within the NP and managing mountain hare populations for the benefit of golden eagles (see here). Three years on and evidence we produced yesterday shows the Plan is going nowhere fast (see here).

We’ve seen the Convenor of the CNPA pleading with the then Environment Minister to help combat raptor persecution within the NP because it ‘threatens to undermine the reputation of the National Park as a high quality wildlife tourism destination‘ (see here). The then Environment Minister (Dr Aileen McLeod) attended a meeting with ‘partners’ during which there was a ‘recognition of the progress made in recent years’ (see here). Eh? Have a look at our list of raptor persecution crimes within the CNP (here) – can you spot any sign of progress? No, because there hasn’t been any.

The next approach from the CNPA was the ‘East Cairngorms Moorland Partnership’. This is an interesting one. One of the stated aims of this ‘partnership’, comprising six contiguous estates and the CNPA, is to ‘enhance raptor and other priority species conservation’. A noble aim, but when you look at the details of this Partnership’s work plan it’s all pretty vague and lacking substance. It can be downloaded here:

east-cairngorms-moorland-partnership_statementofpurpose

Things don’t improve when you realise who is involved with this ‘Partnership’. One of the six estates is none other than Invercauld Estate. You remember Invercauld Estate – the place where illegally-set spring traps were recently discovered (here). The Estate’s response was (a) to suggest it didn’t happen but if it had happened it was probably a set-up to smear the grouse-shooting industry (see here), and (b) despite nothing happening, the Estate ‘took action’ although we’re not allowed to know what that ‘action’ entailed because it’s a secret (see here). Presumably, the setting of illegal traps isn’t part of the work plan designed to ‘enhance raptor and other priority species conservation’.

So where does the CNPA go from here? Well, we said yesterday that there was light at the end of the tunnel. And there is. The CNPA is currently consulting on the NP’s ‘Partnership Plan’ for 2017-2022. This is the management plan for the CNP for that five-year period and will help guide the CNPA’s work on the most pressing issues. The CNPA has identified several ‘big issues’ on which it wants to hear your views, and one of those is ‘Moorland Management’.

The question the CNPA is posing is:

“How can management for grouse be better integrated with wider habitat and species enhancement objectives such as woodland expansion, peatland restoration and raptor conservation?”

The obvious answer to achieving raptor conservation is to get the grouse shooting estates to stop illegally killing raptors! But how?

In the consultation document, the CNPA says the East Cairngorms Moorland Partnership is the stated mechanism for delivering raptor conservation within the eastern side of the NP. Er, illegally set traps being found on one of the Partnership estates doesn’t inspire confidence, does it?

There must come a time when the CNPA has to realise that the ‘partnership’ approach is not working, and to be frank, is unlikely to ever succeed. In our opinion, that time is now.

The CNPA actually has a great deal of power and authority to act against those who continue to persecute raptors within the NP. Have a read of this blog (here) published on the always interesting ParksWatchScotland blog. The authors suggest that the CNPA can introduce ‘hunting byelaws’ for grouse shooting estates within the CNP. Permits could be removed if wildlife crime is discovered and also if Estates refuse to allow monitoring cameras. Permits could also be used to limit the size of grouse ‘bags’, thus helping break the cycle of ever-increasing intensification of grouse moor management practices. Permits could also be used to limit the number of traps in use.

As the authors also point out, byelaws were recently created for the Loch Lomond & Trossachs NP to try and limit camping. So why not create them for the CNP to try and limit raptor persecution?

The CNPA has four aims, set out by Parliament:

  1. To conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the CNP;
  2. To promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the CNP;
  3. To promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the CNP by the public;
  4. To promote sustainable economic and social development of the CNP’s communities.

These aims are to be pursued collectively. However, if there is conflict between the first aim and any of the others then greater weight must be given to the first aim (section 9.6 of the National Parks (Scotland) Act).

We’d encourage as many of you as possible to participate in the CNPA’s consultation process (it closes on 30 Sept 2016) and mention the idea of these byelaws and the CNPA’s responsibility for conserving the natural heritage above all else. You might think, ‘Oh, what’s the point, the CNPA won’t listen to me, they’re in the pockets of the large shooting estates’. Well, perhaps so in the past but perhaps things are changing. Have a read of this blog (here), entitled ‘Time to move with the times‘ recently written by Will Boyd Wallis, Head of Land Management and Conservation at the CNPA. There are clear signs in Will’s blog that the old regime is being challenged and the more people who write in support of this, the better.

You can access the consultation documents here.

An interesting letter from Invercauld Estate

In July we blogged about the discovery in June of a critically-injured Common gull that had been found caught in two illegally-set spring traps on Invercauld Estate in the Cairngorms National Park (see here).

Cairngorms Invercauld - Copy

We also blogged about a bizarre press statement from Invercauld Estate (issued via the GWCT’s twitter feed) in which they denied any illegal activity had taken place or if it had, it was perhaps a set-up ‘intended to discredit the grouse industry‘ (see here).

We also blogged about the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association’s press statement, which said the SGA was conducting its own enquiry (see here).

We also blogged about Police Scotland’s view that a Common gull had been found caught in an illegally-set trap but ‘despite a thorough investigation‘, Police enquiries had failed to find further evidence to proceed with a potential prosecution and ‘there are at present no further investigative opportunities available‘ (see here).

So that looked like the end of it. Until, through a series of FoIs to the Scottish Government and the Cairngorms National Park Authority, a very interesting letter has emerged.

The letter, dated 27 July 2016 (so a week after the original story had broken) was written by Angus McNicol, who identifies himself as the Estate Manager for Invercauld Estate, and was addressed to the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment, Roseanna Cunningham. A copy of the letter was also sent to the Cairngorms National Park Authority. It’s a fascinating read.

Here is a copy of the letter: Invercauld Estate letter

Having read it, our first question was, ‘Why was this letter written?’ That’s a hard question to answer because we can’t get inside Mr McNicol’s head to read his thought processes. We can, though, speculate about the intentions. In our opinion, this letter was written to reassure the Cabinet Secretary that Invercauld Estate takes wildlife crime seriously and they’ve done something about it.

You’ll see that one paragraph in this letter has been partially redacted (by the Scottish Government – and, incidentally, the copy of the letter received from the Cairngorms National Park Authority was redacted in exactly the same place). It’s this partial paragraph that interests us the most. Here it is:

Invercauld redacted

Let’s focus on the sentence immediately before the redaction begins. “Whilst this was a press report, we decided to act on the worst case scenario, taking the report at face value“. Assuming that the ‘worst case scenario‘ might have been that an Estate employee was responsible for illegally setting the traps, the Estate ‘decided to act‘. What action they took is unknown, because that bit has been redacted. But interestingly, the word ‘gamekeepers’ appears later in the same paragraph.

Later in the letter, Mr McNicol reiterates that ‘action‘ had been taken:

Invercauldredacted2

So, was the ‘action’ to which Mr McNicol refers, disciplinary action against one or more Invercauld Estate gamekeepers in relation to this crime? Has somebody been sacked?

If that’s actually what happened, and if Mr McNicol has admitted this in writing, wouldn’t that trigger an investigation in to a potential vicarious liability prosecution?

Is that why, later in the letter, Mr McNicol goes to great lengths to explain the measures that Invercauld Estate has put in place to ensure its staff do not commit wildlife crimes? These measures, explained in such detail, might form the defence of ‘due diligence’ – remember, if an estate is accused of being vicariously liable for certain wildlife crimes, a defence of due diligence is permitted (see here).

Whether an estate’s attempts at due diligence are a sufficient defence to an accusation of vicarious liability is for a court to decide. We presume, if our interpretation of what happened is accurate, that both the Scottish Government and the Cairngorms National Park Authority have notified Police Scotland about the content of Mr McNicol’s letter and Police Scotland will now be following this up with an investigation? Time will tell.

The content of Mr McNicol’s letter raises some other interesting points.

Why, if Invercauld Estate has taken action against an employee, did the Estate deny in their original press statement that the offence had even taken place or claim that if it had, it had been a set-up ‘intended to discredit the grouse industry‘?

Who is the person/organisation that conducted “independent searches of hill ground and of buildings on the Estate to check for illegal traps, snares and illegal pesticides“? Presumably it wasn’t the GWCT – they can hardly be classed as being ‘independent’ if they’re publishing press statements on their twitter feed on behalf of Invercauld Estate. And presumably it wasn’t anybody from Scottish Land & Estates – they can hardly be classed as ‘independent’ as Mr McNicol states Invercauld Estate is a member of SLE. And presumably it wasn’t anybody from the SGA – they can hardly be classed as ‘independent’ as Mr McNicol states that ‘all the relevant staff are members of the SGA‘. So who was it?

When did these ‘independent searches of hill ground and of buildings on the Estate to check for illegal traps, snares and illegal pesticides” take place, and how often have they been conducted?

Why did Police Scotland, as part of what they described as a ‘thorough investigation‘, only speak to a representative of Invercauld Estate (Mr McNicol)? Why didn’t officers question, under caution, the gamekeepers who work on the part of the Estate where the illegally-set traps were found?

It’s all very interesting.

Perhaps we’ll get some answers once the SGA has finished its enquiry in to what happened. Presumably they’ll be publishing their findings in due course….

SSPCA consultation: another year rolls by

sspca logoTwo years ago today saw the closure of the Scottish Government’s public consultation on increasing the SSPCA’s investigatory powers in relation to wildlife crime investigations, and particularly in relation to raptor persecution.

We’ve been told, repeatedly, by successive Environment Ministers that tackling raptor persecution is a Scottish Government ‘key priority’. It’s now been five and a half years since the notion of a public consultation on increasing the SSPCA’s powers was first mooted (ironically, mooted by Roseanna Cunningham in her former role as Environment Minister). Five and a half years of dragging the Government kicking and screaming towards what should be an obvious and easy next step in the fight against the raptor killers. And yet, five and a half years on, still we wait for a decision.

Here’s how the Scottish Government has handled this particular ‘key priority’ –

February 2011: Increased powers for the SSPCA was first suggested by former MSP Peter Peacock as an amendment during the WANE Bill debates. The then Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham rejected it as an amendment but suggested a public consultation was in order.

September 2011: Seven months later MSP Elaine Murray lodged a parliamentary motion that further powers for the SSPCA should be considered.

November 2011: Elaine Murray MSP formalised the question in a P&Q session and the next Environment Minister, Stewart Stevenson MSP, then promised that the consultation would happen ‘in the first half of 2012’.

September 2012: Nine months later and nothing had happened so we asked Paul Wheelhouse MSP, as the new Environment Minister, when the consultation would take place. The response, in October 2012, was:

“The consultation has been delayed by resource pressures but will be brought forward in the near future”.

July 2013: Ten months later and still no sign so we asked the Environment Minister (still Paul Wheelhouse) again. In August 2013, this was the response:

“We regret that resource pressures did further delay the public consultation on the extension of SSPCA powers. However, I can confirm that the consultation document will be published later this year”.

September 2013: At a meeting of the PAW Executive Group, Wheelhouse said this:

“The consultation on new powers for the SSPCA will be published in October 2013“.

January 2014: In response to one of our blog readers who wrote to the Minister (still Paul Wheelhouse) to ask why the consultation had not yet been published:

“We very much regret that resource pressures have caused further delays to the consultation to gain views on the extension of SSPCA powers. It will be published in the near future“.

31 March 2014: Public consultation launched.

1 September 2014: Consultation closed.

22 January 2015: Analysis of consultation responses published by Scottish Government. 233 responses (although 7,256 responses if online petition included – see here).

We were told a decision would come from the new Environment Minister, Dr Aileen McLeod MSP, “in due course”.

1 September 2015: One year after the consultation closed and still nothing.

25 February 2016: In response to a question posed by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change & Environment Committee, Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod said: “I have some further matters to clarify with the SSPCA, however I do hope to be able to report on the Scottish Government’s position on this issue shortly“.

May 2016: Dr Aileen McLeod fails to get re-elected and loses her position as Environment Minister. Roseanna Cunningham is promoted to a newly-created position of Cabinet Secretary for the Environment.

12 May 2016: Scottish Greens MSP Mark Ruskell submits the following Parliamentary question:

Question S5W-00030 – To ask the Scottish Government when it will announce its decision regarding extending the powers of the Scottish SPCA to tackle wildlife crime.

26 May 2016: Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham responds with this:

A decision on whether to extend the investigatory powers of the Scottish SPCA will be announced in due course.

1 September 2016: Two years after the consultation closed and still nothing.

Review of Scottish raptor satellite-tag data widened to three species

A couple of weeks ago we blogged about the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment’s call for a review of golden eagle satellite tag data (see here). This was in response to the news that eight young satellite-tagged golden eagles had ‘disappeared’ on grouse moors in the Monadhliaths over a five year period, with three of them vanishing this year alone (see here). Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham called for the review “to discover if there is a pattern of suspicious activity“.

Shortly afterwards, the news broke that a young satellite-tagged hen harrier (‘Elwood’) had also ‘disappeared’ on a grouse moor in the Monadhliaths (see here). We wondered how Roseanna Cunningham would react to this news and hoped her response would be more substantial than the usual Ministerial expression of “disappointment“.

It seems she has taken note. Here is her response:

“The news that a juvenile hen harrier has disappeared in the Monadhliaths, complete with its satellite tag, only weeks after it fledged, strengthens my determination to get to the truth about how, where and why raptors with functioning satellite tags seem to be regularly disappearing. I have asked for a review of all the evidence and I intend to ensure that data from hen harriers and red kites, as well as data from golden eagles will be considered as part of this. We are continuing to collect evidence in relation to raptors in Scotland, which will be a significant factor in deciding the next steps for tackling wildlife crime.”

So, the review has been widened from just looking at golden eagle satellite tag data to now including hen harrier and red kite satellite tag data. We are pleased about this (with certain caveats, see below), although we still maintain that the review is superfluous to understanding and acknowledging what’s happening to these species on driven grouse moors. The scientific evidence is already clear, and has been available to the decision makers for many, many years. Let’s not pretend we don’t know what’s going on. Looking for, and finding, ‘patterns of suspicious activity‘ has been done to death and the findings have been conclusive, over and over again.

Elwood 2 - Adam Fraser

The reason we welcome the widening of this review is because we can already predict the results for each of the three species, and we predict they will all point to the same problem: the majority of young, satellite-tagged golden eagles, hen harriers and red kites that ‘disappear’ do so on driven grouse moors. Seeing the evidence from one species (golden eagles) would be pretty powerful, but having virtually identical results from two further species should be devastatingly compelling.

The caveat to welcoming this widened review is that the Scottish Government MUST push on with this review without delay and then MUST respond to the findings in a timely manner. This Government (and notably its statutory conservation advisory agency, SNH) has a long track record of prevarication when it comes to publishing results and then acting on the evidence provided. Here are some examples:

The Golden Eagle Conservation Framework (an holistic approach to assessing raptor conservation, trying to find out what’s going on regionally and nationally and trying to look at what’s limiting numbers and influencing productivity). This impressive and substantial review was submitted in 2003. It wasn’t published until 2008. The report identified illegal persecution as a significant constraint on the population.

The Hen Harrier Conservation Framework. Another impressive and substantial review that was submitted in 2008. It wasn’t published until 2011. The report identified illegal persecution as a significant constraint on the population.

The Hen Harrier Conservation Framework Update. This update was required after land managers criticised the 2011 report because it excluded results from the 2010 National Hen Harrier Survey. The update report was submitted in 2013. It has still not been published (and is likely to be further criticised because it won’t include results from the 2016 National Hen Harrier Survey!). We know (because we’ve attended several presentations given by one of the authors) that this report identifies illegal persecution as a significant on-going constraint on the population.

The Peregrine Conservation Framework. This review began in 2003 (or thereabouts – we’re not certain of the exact start date). An interm progress report was published in 2007 but nothing further since then.

The consultation on increased investigatory powers for the SSPCA. This consultation was first suggested in 2011. The consultation was finally launched in March 2014. The consultation closed on 1 September 2014. In May 2016, Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham said a decision “would be announced in due course“. This coming Thursday will mark two years since the consultation period ended.

Population modelling of red kites in northern Scotland. This review aimed to update the findings of a paper published in 2010 which showed illegal persecution was responsible for the slow population growth in this region. The review was submitted in 2015. It has yet to be published. We know (through informal discussions with colleagues) that this report identifies illegal persecution as a significant on-going constraint on this population.

Wildlife Crime Penalties Review. This review was commissioned in July 2013 and it finally reported in November 2015. In February 2016 the then Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod accepted the report’s recommendations. We have yet to hear how the Scottish Government intends to progress those recommendations.

Review of gamebird licensing and legislation in other countries. This report was commissioned in January 2016 and the final report was submitted in late spring 2016. The report has yet to be published. Claudia Beamish MSP has lodged a parliamentary question (dated 18 August 2016) to find out when the Government intends to publish.

Decision on the fate of the Tay beavers. In March 2012 the then Environment Minister Stewart Stevenson delayed a decision on the fate of the Tay beavers for three years, until the end of 2015. In May 2016, the current Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham announced a further delay ‘until later in 2016’. That decision is still pending.

These examples do not inspire great confidence in the Scottish Government’s willingness to act quickly on issues of wildlife conservation, and particularly those issues relating to the illegal persecution of raptors. These long delays only inspire frustration and increasing anger. Let’s hope that with this latest review of raptor satellite tag data, Roseanna Cunningham encourages a fast review process, doesn’t delay the publication of the findings, and acts quickly and robustly to implement measures against those who continue to flout the law.

Photograph shows young hen harrier ‘Elwood’ with his satellite tag, just a few weeks before he ‘disappeared’ on a grouse moor in the Monadhliaths. Photo by Adam Fraser.