Pathetic sentence for Scottish gamekeeper convicted for badger & fox baiting crimes

A young gamekeeper from Aberdeenshire has been convicted of sadistic animal cruelty offences after he posted footage on social media of himself encouraging his dogs to fight with badgers and foxes, according to the Press and Journal.

The P&J article is behind a paywall but it describes proceedings from Aberdeen Sheriff Court on 6th December 2023 where 23-year old gamekeeper Ryan Martin of Balmanno Cottages, Marykirk pleaded guilty to causing dogs to fight with badgers and foxes on various occasions.

He was caught after a tip off to the Scottish SPCA, who raided his house in February 2022 with Police Scotland. Three of his dogs were found with fresh wounds and historical injuries and were immediately confiscated and taken for treatment. They have since been signed over to the SSPCA and rehomed.

Martin’s phone was seized during the raid and a digital forensic examination uncovered the disturbing videos that he’d posted to TikTok and Snapchat. He’d prefaced one of the videos with,

Hold on to your fucking hats. What you’re about to see isn’t 100% legal“,

so there can be no doubt that he knew what he was doing was illegal, even though he had initially denied causing the dogs to fight with other animals when he spoke with a social worker for a background report.

Martin’s defence lawyer Gregor Kelly, told the court what Martin had said to the social worker:

He’s been out at night shooting foxes as he thinks he’s entitled to do with his dogs. At the time, when foxes have been shot, he encourages the dogs to go and retrieve, as they’re trained to do, and dispatch the foxes. On one occasion, they encountered a badger“.

According to the P&J’s court reporter, ‘Mr Kelly also told the court that Martin, who is employed as a gamekeeper, saw foxes and badgers as “vermin“, but said, “He accepts these are views not acceptable in modern Scotland“‘.

He told the court that ‘Martin intends to work as a joiner to support his partner and children in the future’.

Sheriff Ian Wallace told Martin: “I don’t accept the explanation you gave to the social worker. It’s clear from the narrative you were causing, intentionally, these animals to fight and that caused injuries and/or death to not just the foxes and badgers but to your own dogs“.

And yet despite the clear evidence and the eventual guilty pleas, Martin was only ordered to carry out 175 hours of unpaid work and was banned from keeping or working with dogs for five years.

Eh? What happened to the ‘tougher penalties‘ for animal and wildlife crime that was enacted in Scotland in December 2020 (the Animals and Wildlife (Penalties, Protections and Powers) (Scotland) Act 2020), which increased the maximum penalty for the most serious animal welfare and wildlife crimes (which includes animal fighting offences) to five years imprisonment and unlimited fines?

Even under the old legislation, Martin’s sentence would be seen as being light touch. For example, compare his sentence to that of Millden Estate gamekeeper Rhys Owen Davies who was convicted for badger and fox baiting offences he committed in Scotland 2018 and 2019 – Davies was given an eight month custodial sentence and banned from owning or keeping animals for 15 years (see here).

Once again we see an inconsistent sentencing approach and, in Martin’s case, an ineffectual punishment that simply won’t provide a deterrent for other depraved individuals who think animal abuse is acceptable.

Kudos to the Scottish SPCA whose investigation brought Martin to court – yet another clear demonstration that SSPCA officers are equipped and capable of dealing with serious wildlife crime. The sooner they get an extension of those powers (through the Wildlife Management & Muirburn Bill) to deal with a wider suite of wildlife crimes, the better.

Charges dropped for raptor persecution offences committed on Overlaggan Estate, Dumfries & Galloway

On 26 September 2023, two gamekeepers were convicted at Dumfries Sheriff Court for offences committed on Overlaggan Estate in 2021, a pheasant, partridge, duck and goose- shooting estate in Dumfries & Galloway.

David Excell, 54, pleaded guilty to deliberately trapping and killing a pine marten and failing to comply with the conditions of his firearms licence. Kenneth McClune, 61, pleaded guilty to failing to comply with the conditions of his firearms licence.

Location map from Overlaggan Estate sales brochure
Landscape view from Overlaggan Estate sales brochure

You might recall that I wrote about this case (here), and I mentioned that I thought there was something odd going on because I was pretty sure that four men had been charged originally and that the alleged offences included the illegal killing of birds of prey, according to a press statement issued by Police Scotland in October 2021 (see here).

But when gamekeepers Excell and McClune were convicted at Dumfries Sheriff Court in September 2023, there was no mention of the other two defendants, nor of the alleged raptor persecution offences, which I thought was odd, so I’ve done some research.

First I asked Police Scotland about the case, to determine whether the raptor persecution charges were going to be heard in a separate case, or whether the charges had been dropped, and if so, why? Police Scotland refused to comment and instead pointed me in the direction of the Crown Office.

The Crown Office told me this:

As you were not directly involved in this case there is a limited amount of information which I can give you as we need to ensure compliance with Data Protection legislation.

I can, however, advise you that there were four accused persons in this case and there were charges involving raptors. COPFS have a duty to review the available evidence throughout the life of a case.  This review includes the assessment of evidence, the availability and strength of evidence against each accused and outcome focus for a case.

On the day of the trial pleas were offered from two of the accused in the terms that you are aware of [Ed: i.e. the guilty pleas from gamekeepers David Excell and Kenneth McClune in relation to firearms offences and the killing of the pine marten]. In light of this new circumstance the case was reviewed by the prosecutor. I can assure you that this decision was not taken lightly and was ultimately done so based on a careful analysis of the evidence. COPFS takes the prosecution of offences involving raptors and all other wildlife crime extremely seriously and prosecutorial action will be taken if there is sufficient evidence and if it is in the public interest to do so”.

When I asked the Crown Office to specify what were “the charges involving raptors“, the Crown Office told me this:

All I can advise you further is that there were three charges under s1(1)(a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 involving raptors.

The rules around what information we can provide and to who are outlined in s6 of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014. Subsection 2 outlines the categories of individuals who are entitled to information upon request. You do not fall within any of those categories in relation to this case.

Even if you did, COPFS are only required to provide information in relation to the ‘nature’ of the charges on a complaint, not the details of them. So had you been a witness in this case, I would have been unable to provide you with any more information than I already have.

I am sorry that I cannot provide you with any more details about the case. You will hopefully appreciate that, in an effort to assist you as much as possible, I have provided you with more information than I was technically required to give you under the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014“.

So there we have it. The raptor persecution charges were dropped, with no explanation given, and we’re not even allowed to know the details of those charges, let alone why they were dropped, other than there were three charges and they related to S1(1)(a) of the Wildlife & Countryside Act, which refers to the killing, injuring or taking of a wild bird. We don’t know whether that involved poisoning, shooting or trapping in this case.

Presumably there was sufficient evidence to warrant the charges being placed against the four individuals in the first place so we can conclude that raptor persecution crimes were indeed committed, but the resultant dropping of those charges and the subsequent (and lawfully legitimate) position of both Police Scotland and the Crown Office means that effectively those crimes have been covered up, and the public has no (lawfully legitimate) access to the details.

How is that ‘justice being seen to be done’? All it does is provide the game-shooting industry a platform to perpetuate the myth that gamekeepers are no longer killing birds of prey on land that’s managed for gamebird shooting.

At the time the offences were committed, Overlaggan Estate was marketed on the Sporting Lets website as offering the following ‘sport’:

The owner of Overlaggan Estate was not identified in the Sporting Lets promotional material but details of the management team were given as follows:

Police Scotland announced the charges against the four men in a press release in October 2021. Interestingly, Overlaggan Estate was put on the market in February 2022. Here’s the sales brochure:

The estate has since been sold and the farm is now owned by James Pringle Jack, according to Andy Wightman’s brilliant website, Who Owns Scotland:

James Pringle Jack owns several other estates in the area, including Hensol and Dornells. It is not known whether Mr Jack operates a pheasant/partridge shoot at Overlaggan or whether any of the previous staff are still employed there. There is no suggestion that wildlife crime continues on the estate.

It’ll be interesting to see whether a General Licence restriction is imposed for the offences committed on the estate in 2021.

Van Cutsem’s gamekeeper convicted of having offensive weapon but all charges of alleged wildlife crime ‘withdrawn’

Two gamekeepers who work on William van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate in Norfolk appeared at Norwich Magistrates Court this morning to face a number of charges of alleged wildlife crime.

Dominic Green, 35, of Cockley Cley Road, Hilborough, Thetford and William Richardson, 22, of Nethergate Street, Hopton, near Diss, had been charged with intentionally taking a Schedule 1 wild bird (a goshawk) at the Hilborough Estate, and the use of pigeons as decoys inside a crow cage trap to take/kill the goshawk. They had also been charged with failing to ensure the welfare of the pigeon decoys.

However, according to a report in the Eastern Daily Press this afternoon (here), all the wildlife crime charges were ‘withdrawn’ against both gamekeepers.

Green pleaded guilty to possession of an offensive weapon (an extendable police-style baton) and his lawyer argued he’d had this in his possession since 2003 when it was lawful to possess it.

Headline from today’s Eastern Daily Press

District Judge David Wilson recognised that Green was “essentially” of good character and imposed a fine of £1,000, with £400 costs and a £400 victim surcharge.

It hasn’t been reported why the wildlife crime charges were ‘withdrawn’.

This case relates to a police investigation that launched in April 2022 after the anti-bloodsports group, the Hunt Investigation Team, recorded covert footage of a masked man removing a goshawk from a trap that appeared to have been baited with a pigeon decoy which was said to have taken place on van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate in Norfolk. The fate of the goshawk is not known, nor, it seems, the identity of the masked man who removed it from the trap and walked away with it.

Previous blogs on this case:

8th May 2022: Van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate in Norfolk at centre of police investigation into alleged raptor persecution (here)

10th May 2022: Illegally-set trap found on van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate in Norfolk (here)

11th May 2022: Police confirm bird of prey was caught in illegally-set trap on van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate in Norfolk (here)

12th May 2022: Covert footage published showing masked man with trapped goshawk on van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate (here)

16th May 2022: Mail on Sunday blames ‘vigilantes’ for police investigation into alleged wildlife crime on van Cutsem’s estate (here)

12th August 2022: GWCT disregards police investigation into alleged wildlife crime on van Cutsem’s Norfolk estate (here)

13 October 2023: Two gamekeepers due in court after police investigation on van Cutsems’ Hilborough Estate in Norfolk (here)

Two gamekeepers due in court after police investigation on Van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate in Norfolk

Two gamekeepers are due to appear at Norwich Magistrates Court next week charged with a number of alleged offences relating to a police investigation that centred on William van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate in Norfolk last year.

A police search of the estate took place in April 2022 after a group called the Hunt Investigation Team, describing itself as ‘anti bloodsports’, said it had recorded covert video footage of a masked man with a goshawk inside what was considered to be an illegally-set trap on the estate. The masked man removed the goshawk and walked away from the trap. The goshawk’s fate was unknown.

Details of the charges have not yet been publicised and as this will be the first hearing in this case, the two gamekeepers have not yet entered a plea. Hopefully details will become clearer after the first hearing.

PLEASE NOTE: As this is now a live prosecution blog comments will not be accepted until criminal proceedings have concluded. Thanks for your understanding.

Previous blogs on this case can be found here:

8th May 2022: Van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate in Norfolk at centre of police investigation into alleged raptor persecution (here)

10th May 2022: Illegally-set trap found on van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate in Norfolk (here)

11th May 2022: Police confirm bird of prey was caught in illegally-set trap on van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate in Norfolk (here)

12th May 2022: Covert footage published showing masked man with trapped goshawk on van Cutsem’s Hilborough Estate (here)

16th May 2022: Mail on Sunday blames ‘vigilantes’ for police investigation into alleged wildlife crime on van Cutsem’s estate (here)

12th August 2022: GWCT disregards police investigation into alleged wildlife crime on van Cutsem’s Norfolk estate (here)

A ‘Humane cable restraint’ is still a snare, it’s just been rebranded to sound less archaic

Further to this morning’s blog warning that the Scottish Government might be hoodwinked into thinking a ‘humane cable restraint’ is different to a snare (here), I’d encourage you to read this brilliant briefing note written by Kirsty Jenkins, Policy Officer at OneKind, sent to the Rural Affairs Committee:

Kirsty reiterates the fact that the game shooting lobby has simply re-branded the term ‘snare’ as a ‘humane cable restraint’ and that there’s no difference between the two:

The letter from Scottish Land & Estates, signed by ‘150 land managers’ calling on the Environment Minister to retain the use of ‘humane cable restraints’ has also now been published:

Once again, the signatories to this letter, just as with the other recent SLE letter opposing grouse moor licensing plans, includes some ‘interesting’ names.

One of the signatories shares the same name as a gamekeeper who was convicted of raptor persecution offences several years ago. I imagine it’s simply coincidence and that these are two separate individuals because a convicted gamekeeper wouldn’t still be working in the game-shooting industry, given the industry’s proclaimed ‘zero tolerance’ stance on raptor persecution, right?

The letter also includes signatories from a number of gamekeepers from an estate in the Angus Glens where one of them was charged with alleged snaring offences several years ago after the discovery of a dead snared deer and two snared foxes -one dead from dehydration (suggesting the snare hadn’t been checked within the required 24hr time period) and another one with appalling injuries which had to be euthanised by an SSPCA inspector. For reasons that haven’t been disclosed (because they don’t have to), the Crown Office dropped the prosecution.

The letter also includes signatories from gamekeepers in the Southern Uplands Moorland Group – this is the region where gamekeeper Alan Wilson worked – Wilson was convicted in 2019 of nine wildlife offences, including the setting of 23 illegal snares (see here).

To be clear, I’m not contesting the right of gamekeepers to sign the letter to the Environment Minister – of course they have every right to do so and there is no suggestion that any of them are involved with unlawful snaring practices – but what I am doing is providing some important context for the benefit of the Minister and other decision makers about an industry that can’t be relied upon to self-regulate.

If you’re based in Scotland, I’d urge you to sign the e-action to the Environment Minister urging her to ban ALL snares, including those re-branded as ‘humane cable restraints’ – HERE.

Awareness-raising campaign about illegal killing of birds of prey in Yorkshire & Derbyshire

Anyone who’s been following this blog for any length of time will be aware that the illegal killing of raptors takes place all over the UK, although there are some counties where crimes against birds of prey occur more frequently than in others.

In the most recent Birdcrime report (2021) published by the RSPB, the top three counties with the highest number of confirmed raptor persecution crimes that year were Norfolk (13 incidents), Dorset (12) and North Yorkshire (10). Over a ten-year period, by far the worst county for raptor-killing is North Yorkshire, which is hardly a surprise given its large size that includes vast areas managed for gamebird shooting, including in the lowlands and uplands:

So it was good to see a campaign last week by the charity Crimestoppers, focusing on the illegal killing of raptors in Yorkshire. They published a webpage (here) with information about what signs to look out for and how to report these offences, and this poster was doing the rounds on social media:

A similar awareness-raising campaign featured in Derbyshire Police’s Rural Crime Team newsletter in the summer, re-published on Derbyshire Wildlife Trust’s website (here).

In the article, the Police downplayed the significance of raptor persecution on driven grouse moors, claiming it was ‘historical’, but the information about other aspects of raptor persecution were quite relevant, especially the theft of peregrine eggs and chicks, which Derbyshire sees a fair bit of (e.g. Derbyshire Police recently charged a man with disturbance and egg theft at a peregrine site and he’s due in court next month – here).

It was amusing to see the list of partners that Derbyshire Police claim to be working with to tackle raptor persecution – I wonder how many times members of the Moorland Association and the National Gamekeepers Organisation have assisted police enquiries other than giving ‘no comment’ interviews – but it was good to see the police acknowledge the use of night vision equipment to target roosting raptors:

Most offences of shooting birds of prey involve the use of shotguns, although rifle shooting using powerful scopes or night vision aids is also used to kill perched birds at considerable distances‘.

Earlier this month, an RSPB claim that some gamekeepers were using night vision equipment to kill roosting birds of prey made the headlines (here), much to the consternation of the game-shooting industry. Derbyshire Police’s ‘partner’, the National Gamekeepers Organisation, had this to say about it:

There is no proof whatsoever that night vision has been used to target raptors; no proof that gamekeepers have been involved in any way, and indeed no proof that the birds are in fact dead. This is simply another attack by the RSPB on gamekeepers and the shooting sector more widely‘ (see here).

But then the game-shooting industry still denies that raptor persecution is even a thing, so they’re hardly going to acknowledge the more devious tactics used by the raptor-killers in their midst, are they?

David Scott convicted of ‘catalogue of animal abuse’ whilst employed as Head Gamekeeper at Cabrach Estate

A man has been convicted of carrying out a ‘catalogue of animal abuse’ whilst employed as the Head Gamekeeper at Cabrach Estate in Morayshire.

David Scott, 34, appeared at Elgin Sheriff Court on 15 September to answer charges relating to the alleged neglect of 14 working dogs whilst he was employed as Head Gamekeeper at Cabrach Estate between 27 July and 22 September 2022.

The dogs were found during an Scottish SPCA raid at his home address on the estate after a tip off about the alleged conditions in which he was keeping his dogs. Full details are provided below about the appalling lack of care and all 14 dogs were seized by the SSPCA, provided with urgent veterinary attention and have since been re-homed.

Scott had also been charged with training a male black and tan dog called Boysie to fight and had videoed those fights, said to have taken place at his home address on the estate, on his phone and shared them with others. The Fiscal agreed to drop this charge and another charge that alleged that, whilst at Cabrach and Glenfiddich Estate on 13 July 2022, David Scott let his dog attack a fox that had been caught in a snare.

It’s not clear to me why the Crown agreed to drop the animal fighting charges as part of a plea bargain and instead chose to just accept guilty pleas to the neglect charges. Plea bargaining happens in many criminal cases as a way of avoiding a costly trial, but it’s usually the minor charges that are dropped, not the more serious allegations. The Crown Office isn’t obliged to provide an explanation for its decision.

According to an article by a court reporter from the Press & Journal, the sentencing went as follows:

On sentencing, Sheriff Robert McDonald said Scott had “failed to keep a grip” on his animals, adding: “No matter how bad your life is, your animals still need looking after. The dogs don’t care. If things are tough, you should make arrangements for them.

I am conscious of your employment and that you may be around dogs when out on a shoot. I have the power to impose a custodial sentence or a £20,000 fine.

However, I have taken this into account and take a serious view and will impose a fine.”

Scott was fined £1,275 and banned from owning more than two dogs for a period of three years‘.

The P&J article also reported that Scott had ‘lost his position as head gamekeeper after the raid and had been “demoted sideways”, whilst still earning a salary of £40,000 plus accommodation worth £15,000 per annum‘. According to my local sources he now works as a ‘handyman’ on the estate.

Cabrach Estate will be familiar to long-term blog readers. In 1998, a joint RSPB and Police investigation recorded ten persecution incidents between February and May. These included the discovery of 24 poisoned baits (ten rabbits, six pigeons, six grouse and two hares) that had been laid out on the hill. Three illegal pole traps were also found on the estate as well as an owl with legs that had been smashed in a trap. A dead peregrine was also discovered in the back of the head gamekeeper’s Land Rover – tests revealed it had been poisoned with Carbofuran. The head gamekeeper was convicted (for possession of the dead peregrine) and fined £700 (see here) but prosecutions for the other offences were not forthcoming, presumably due to the difficulty of identifying an individual culprit.

In April 2006 another gamekeeper on this estate was filmed shooting two buzzards that had been caught inside a crow cage trap. After he’d shot them he hid them inside a nearby rabbit hole. He was convicted and fined a pathetic £200 (see here). What wasn’t mentioned in court was that the corpses of another eleven shot buzzards had been retrieved during the investigation from nearby rabbit holes (see here).

And in 2017, the Crown Office dropped a long-running investigation into the alleged shooting of a hen harrier on Cabrach in 2013, caught on camera by the RSPB (see here). This resulted in widespread public fury and questions were asked at First Minister’s Question Time.

Here’s the article from the Press & Journal:

David Scott, 34, appeared at Elgin Sheriff Court accused of neglecting 14 dogs in his care between July 27 and September 22 2022.

The Crown accepted a not guilty plea from his wife, Gillian, and an amended guilty plea from her husband.

The court heard Scott had been head gamekeeper at Carbrach and Glenfiddich Estates until the raid on his home in September last year.

Fiscal depute Karen Poke said the SSPCA’s special investigation unit had received a tip-off about the welfare of animals being kept by the Scotts during August 2022.

“Due to the immediate and real concern of the nature of the reports,” she said. “The police attended the property on September 7.”

She told the court that what had been found was three “wet, extremely dirty” and “totally unacceptable” kennel blocks, each without any sleeping areas for the dogs.

“There was a strong smell of faeces and urine abundant throughout the kennels,” Mrs Poke went on. “There were no dry areas for the dogs to lie down and no evidence of any dog food.”

The officers, the court heard, found a barrel full of rotten meat and fish and it was suggested this is what the dogs were being fed.

All 14 dogs were removed to the care of the SSPCA and were said to have been “suffering and in distress”.

Scott, who lives with his wife at Bridgehaugh in Dufftown, admitted causing unnecessary suffering and pain to dogs by not seeking veterinary treatment or providing them with essential care.

As part of the plea bargain, a not guilty plea to a charge that Scott trained a male black and tan dog called Boysie to fight and supplied videos of his brawls was accepted by the Crown.

The dogfights were said to have taken place at the home address.

Another offence, whilst at Carbrach and Glenfiddich Estate on July 13 2022, of snaring a fox and letting his dog attack it, was also dropped.

14 dogs were neglected in total

Among the dogs alleged to have been abused were:

Ellie, a female harrier-type dog, who suffered an ear mite infection for weeks without getting treatment.

Babatoots, a female spaniel who also had infected ears and gums for weeks without medical help.

Toots, another female spaniel who suffered from infections of the ears and gums.

Sadie, a female spaniel who had chronic ear infections and conjunctivitis.

In total, he was said to have neglected 14 dogs and was charged with “failing to ensure a suitable environment by way of comfortable and clean resting areas, a suitable diet” causing “suffering, injury and disease”.

Defence counsel Callum Anderson said the couple had been going through a “difficult period” in their lives at the time of the police raid.

He said Scott had accepted the conditions were “awful” and said the kennels had become so wet due to a “torrential storm” the night before.

Mr Anderson said Mrs Scott still owns two dogs as family pets and said the lapse was due to “dramatic circumstances”, including the death of her father and a medical issue around the date of the offences.

“They accept they were not dealing with matters at that time. That is the reason why veterinary treatment was neglected,” he said.

Scott, the court heard, had lost his position as head gamekeeper after the raid and had been “demoted sideways”, whilst still earning a salary of £40,000 plus accommodation worth £15,000 per annum.

“He recognises it was not acceptable and lessons have been learned,” Mr Anderson said.

On sentencing, Sheriff Robert McDonald said Scott had “failed to keep a grip” on his animals, adding: “No matter how bad your life is, your animals still need looking after. The dogs don’t care. If things are tough, you should make arrangements for them.

“I am conscious of your employment and that you may be around dogs when out on a shoot. I have the power to impose a custodial sentence or a £20,000 fine.

“However, I have taken this into account and take a serious view and will impose a fine.”

Scott was fined £1,275 and banned from owning more than two dogs for a period of three years.

ENDS

Gamekeepers using night vision goggles to shoot roosting golden eagles & hen harriers, claims RSPB

Gamekeepers in Scotland are using night vision goggles to shoot roosting golden eagles & hen harriers, according to Ian Thomson, Head of Investigations at RSPB Scotland, who has been quoted in an article published by the Mail on Sunday on 10th September.

Conservationists have long suspected this to be the case on certain estates, where the eagles’ satellite tag data have shown their sudden ‘disappearance’ from known roost trees at odd times of the night, never to be seen or heard from again. We know that gamekeepers routinely use night vision equipment for fox-shooting – the equipment is often advertised in the shooting press – so it’s not a stretch to think that some of them are also using this equipment for targeting and killing sleeping birds of prey.

Note also that Ian mentions a number of current police investigations into satellite-tagged raptors that have ‘disappeared’….news on those soon…there are a lot.

Here’s the article:

42 badgers killed on or next to Scottish grouse moors between 2018-2022

42 badgers have been found killed (baited, mauled, snared, shot, trapped, dug) on or next to grouse shooting estates between 2018-2022, according to the charity Scottish Badgers.

This figure, considered to be an under-estimate relying on accidental discoveries, was revealed in correspondence to the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee, written by the charity to correct information that had previously been given to the Committee by a representative of BASC (British Association for Shooting & Conservation) during an evidence session on the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Bill in June 2023.

Badger. Photo: Chris Packham

During the third evidence session on 21st June 2023, Rural Affairs Committee member Rachael Hamilton MSP asked the witnesses whether there was evidence linking grouse moor ‘operators’ with the illegal persecution of badgers.

Dr Marnie Lovejoy, Head of Environmental Law Research at BASC told the Committee, “Badgers do not tend to live on grouse moors…They are simply not there“.

The Scottish Badgers charity wasn’t represented at the oral evidence session so it has now written to the Committee to provide expert evidence on this issue.

In its letter addressing the claim made by BASC, Scottish Badgers wrote:

On the contrary, there is documented evidence that relentless criminal persecution of badgers on grouse moors takes place linked to estate employees and is carried out by the same persons who kill raptors“.

The letter goes on to provide examples, including the recent cases of the sadist gamekeeper employed by Millden Estate in the Angus Glens (currently sanctioned after evidence of raptor persecution) who was jailed for his role in a badger-baiting gang (here), and the gamekeeper employed by Longformacus Estate in the Scottish Borders who was convicted for multiple wildlife crime offences, including the illegal killing of badgers and raptors (here).

You can read the letter from Scottish Badgers to the Rural Affairs & Islands Committee here:

Moorland Association Chair claims: “Clearly any illegal [hen harrier] persecution is not happening”

Just how stupid/arrogant do you have to be to go on record saying, “Clearly, any illegal [hen harrier] persecution is not happening“, when it so demonstrably is?!

This is what Mark Cunliffe-Lister, Chair of the grouse moor owners’ lobby group, the Moorland Association, told BBC Radio 4’s Farming Today programme this morning.

It’s an astonishing claim to make when the evidence to refute such a claim is so readily available, and even more so on the day when we learned that at least 101 hen harriers have now gone ‘missing’ / been illegally killed since 2018 (see here).

Although Cunliffe-Lister does have a history of ‘forgetting’ to mention things when it comes to hen harrier persecution (see here). Oh, and he also forgot to mention this morning the poisoned red kite that was discovered on his estate (Swinton) in 2021 – the one that North Yorkshire Police refused to investigate (see here).

When Cunliffe-Lister was called out on his claim by the interviewer Caz Graham, he had the brass neck to argue that there “do seem to be isolated incidents“. Does he think that 101 missing/killed hen harriers are ‘isolated incidents’?? Oh, and some of those 101 include brood meddled hen harriers.

Also interviewed on this morning’s programme was John Holmes, Director of Strategy at Natural England and who oversees the hen harrier brood meddling sham. Holmes was questioned at length about Wild Justice’s criticisms of the hen harrier brood meddling sham, including the unimpressive scientific approach to the trial. Holmes argued that Natural England was being advised by an independent panel of ornithologists and statisticians. What he didn’t say, as Mark Avery pointed out on Twitter, is that the identities of those ornithologists and statisticians is being kept a secret, as is their scientific advice.

Holmes also argued that Natural England has ‘expert social scientists’ to examine whether brood meddling has changed the opinion of grouse moor owners and managers towards hen harriers. NE don’t need ‘expert social scientists’ to find an answer, the illegal persecution statistics tell us all we need to know.

The interview is available on BBC iPlayer for the next 29 days (here, starts at 4.59 mins) but I’ve produced a transcript for posterity:

Presenter Caz Graham: Hen harriers are beautiful birds that live in the uplands across the UK but their numbers are precariously low, particularly in England.

These low numbers are blamed on predation and on persecution by gamekeepers who illegally target birds of prey because they feed on grouse eggs and chicks. Most hen harrier nests in England are on land managed as grouse moor.

To try and rebuild the population a Government-led Hen Harrier Recovery Plan began in 2016. One element of it is a trial of what’s called ‘brood management’, where eggs and chicks are taken from hen harrier nests, raised in captivity and re-released later back in to the wild so their parents take fewer grouse chicks to feed them.

The Moorland Association, one of several partners in the brood management trial say that this year has been a real success with 24 chicks released. The population of hen harriers in England is now at the highest it’s been for 100 years, they say.

The wildlife campaign group Wild Justice welcomes the increase in hen harrier numbers but is critical of brood management. I put some of their points to Mark Cunliffe-Lister, the Chair of the Moorland Association who first gave me his response to these latest figures.

Chair of Moorland Association Mark Cunliffe-Lister: It’s been a fantastic success, we’ve shown that as a dedicated team we can take the chicks from the nest, we can breed them in captivity, we can re-release them on another site and they can live a perfectly good wild life going forwards.

Caz Graham: How have the birds that have been reared this way in previous years fared? Presumably they’re all tagged, they’re all tracked, you know how they’re doing?

Mark Cunliffe-Lister: Yep, no, absolutely. So, I mean like everything in the wild, they look around for different territories, they move about. I think one of the interesting things has been when we release them is they’re not necessarily, quite a lot of hen harriers will come back to exactly where they were born and bred, these ones will look around for other territories so that’s been very successful as they’ve taken on different territories and gone to different areas.

Caz Graham: Have they bred themselves?

Mark Cunliffe-Lister: Yes, they’ve bred themselves as well so they’ve shown breeding technique,sadly some of them have died but that’s the same in the wild, you have mortality going on in the wild.

Caz Graham: Wild Justice is very critical of brood management, in fact they call it brood meddling rather than management and they published a report last week saying it is a waste of money. They argue that that money could be spent in other conservation areas and that there isn’t really robust scientific evidence to prove that it’s doing any good.

Mark Cunliffe Lister: The figures speak for themselves in terms of how successful it’s been, so going from hardly any hen harriers now to having hundreds of hen harrier chicks that have been bred through the scheme and through the wild, so in terms of Wild Justice, clearly they’re anti-grouse shooting and that’s their agenda and that’s fine, but as a conservation programme I’d say it’s been an incredible success and very happy to sit down and go through the numbers and compare that with other schemes and we can see, can compare that.

Caz Graham: How would you respond to their claim that really this is just a delaying tactic to put off more stringent and effective measures against those gamekeepers who break the law by either shooting or poisoning birds of prey?

Mark Cunliffe-Lister: Yeah, well it’s clearly not about that and clearly it’s dealing with any conflict there so we’re seeing birds every day flying around grouse moors, with keepers, we’re seeing them on, by tag data, we’re seeing them in the air so clearly any illegal killing is not happening. They would like to say it is but you can see that for your own eyes that it isn’t happening.

Caz Graham: Oh well there is evidence that illegal killing happens, we do report on cases where gamekeepers have been convicted, even, for shooting or for poisoning birds of prey.

Mark Cunliffe-Lister: Yeah, there, sadly do seem to be isolated incidents.

Caz Graham: And where do you see brood management going in the future because some would say it’s not a very sustainable kind of way forward is it?

Mark Cunliffe-Lister: Oh I’d say it’s very sustainable. As I say, we’re clear that there is a conflict between hen harriers and grouse, we’re not hiding away from that and this allows it to be managed, so it’s a job that people came together, decided what the best way forward was, brood management was the way they thought would work best, we put that in to practice, we’ve shown it does work and yeah, I’d say it’s very sustainable moving forwards.

Caz Graham: Mark Cunliffe-Lister from the Moorland Association. We asked Wild Justice to come on this morning’s programme but without seeing more extensive data from Natural England, they declined. Well, Natural England, the Government’s advisor on nature is also a partner in the brood management trial project. John Holmes, a strategy director for Natural England oversees it.

Natural England Strategy Director John Holmes: The purpose of the brood management trial is to test the significance of the availability of brood management to moorland managers in achieving that increase.

Caz Graham: And Natural England lead the monitoring for this project. The Moorland Association tell us that they have reared and released 24 chicks this year, does that figure tally with what you have?

John Holmes: That’s absolutely right, we work alongside them in that work and that’s spot on.

Caz Graham: Can you explain to us who funds this project and how much it’s cost so far?

John Holmes: Part of it is funded by the industry itself through the Moorland Association so actually all the practical work to do brood management is funded by them, release aviaries, buying tags for monitoring and things. Natural England we estimate has spent around £800,000 since the trial started but that will be on things like staff to undertake sound assessment of the science that underlines the licences to allow it to happen and alongside that some work on persecution and investigations.

Caz Graham: £800,000, that sounds like an awful lot really.

John Holmes: Well I would say that sounds good value for recovering of a species that’s been completely extinct. Years and years of way more money than that being spent on investigation but no successful prosecutions whatsoever. We know that illegal persecution goes on and we’re continuing to investigate it. We certainly know that it would cost hundred of thousands for protection of a single nest by the police year round so actually in terms of the increase we’ve got that’s really good value for money.

Caz Graham: Isn’t just cracking down on the criminal element who persecute raptors, birds of prey, isn’t that really where the focus should be?

John Holmes: The simple answer is it hasn’t worked, you know, enforcement was tried and it still goes on, you know, we absolutely back enforcement and work with the police to try and find those criminals but it simply didn’t work. The other thing is to say cracking down on criminals assumes that everybody who manages a moor, or owns a moor, is a criminal and the simple fact is that if landowners and gamekeepers come to us and say, ‘Look, we want to have hen harriers, we want to look after hen harriers’, we’re gonna work with them because the results are clear.

Caz Graham: A point that Wild Justice might well make though is that you’re dealing with a criminal act by perhaps just removing the temptation rather than arresting the perpetrators, you know it’s a bit like ignoring car thieves in an area but paying for a few cars to be stuck in a garage.

John Holmes: I think a better analogy would be to assume that if you’re having your car stolen you’re assuming everyone you meet near your car is gonna steal it and that’s simply not the case.

Caz Graham: I want to put to you another questions as well about Wild Justice’s claims. They say they’re really unimpressed by the standard of scientific enquiry that’s evident in Natural England’s brood management study. How would you respond to that?

John Holmes: Well we’ve got an independent panel that advises us on that science, made up of ornithological and statistical experts, it is a trial, things aren’t always perfect in both the planning and execution, you have to react to real situations on the ground. One of the things we’re trying to measure is how the availability of brood management has influenced people’s opinions of hen harriers and may have resulted in less persecution. That’s really hard to do, it’s not easy to figure out what questions you ask but we’ve got expert social scientists who know how to ask those sorts of questions and we’re still part way through the trial.

Caz Graham: I mean the trial’s been going on for five years, it’s had an extra two years added to it, I mean, gosh, is it still a trial, can you still call it a trial at that length?

John Holmes: It’s still a trial because we don’t actually know the answer to the significance of brood management in achieving the outcome that we’ve got so far.

Caz Graham: So how many years can the trial go on? When will you be able to say whether it does work?

John Holmes: Well it’ll go on until we get a scientifically robust answer. We’re hoping that these next two years will significantly increase our information and lead to some better answers and where we might take hen harrier management in the future.

ENDS