Tag: gamekeeper

Illegal tampering with traps – results of BASC Scotland ‘study’ shows not widespread

Earlier this month we read a fascinating article published in Fife Today about the alleged illegal tampering of traps (see here).

Landowner Sir Robert Spencer-Nairn (Rankielour Estate) was talking about how he’d installed CCTV cameras ‘following a spate of incidents’ where ‘vicious’ crows had been released from traps to ‘wreak damage in the countryside’ (yep, you get the idea – he has links with GCT so what do you expect?). The article also suggested that Police Scotland  ‘is reporting a rise in the number of traps being tampered with’.

Is that right? Well, how about we look at the evidence.

Regular blog readers may recall former Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse telling the RACCE Committee in November 2013 that there wasn’t any evidence to support or refute claims from the game-shooting industry of widespread trap interference/damage, but that a study (funded by Scottish Government – i.e. tax payers) was about to begin to try and assess those claims (see here).

That year-long study began in April 2014 and finished at the end of March 2015. BASC (Scotland) issued a press release in February 2014 to announce the start of the study, and it’s really worth a read (see here) – especially the comments attributed to Mike Holliday (BASC Scotland), Tim (Kim) Baynes (Scottish Land & Estates Moorland Group) and Alex Hogg (SGA), who all claimed that trap interference was widespread (ooh, is that the old victim card being played once more?). As well as BASC, the study was reportedly widely supported by SLE, SGA, GWCT (Scotland), Scottish Countryside Alliance, Scottish Assoc for Country Sports and NFU Scotland. Pretty good coverage then.

So how did the study go? What were the findings? An FoI has revealed all. See here:

FoI April 2015_ Illegal interference with traps and snares BASC – Copy

It turns out that this alleged problem isn’t widespread after all.

Let’s just ignore the fact that none of the data were independently verified, and assume that the gamekeepers who submitted the data were honest (because gamekeepers never lie, right?). In which case, there were 19 alleged trap interference/damage incidents throughout the year-long ‘study’. BASC has actually submitted 25 alleged incidents, but 6 of these can be immediately discounted because they allegedly took place before the study had begun and one of them didn’t even involve alleged disturbance or vandalism: “Snares being used with tag number belonging to another person”.

Of the 19 which apparently took place during the official study period, only 11 were reported to the police. Interesting then, that the article in Fife Today states ‘Police Scotland is reporting a rise in the number of traps being tampered with‘. On what evidence is Police Scotland making this claim?

If you look closely at the details of the 19 alleged incidents, you’ll notice that over one third of them took place on a single estate in Crieff. If those alleged incidents did actually take place, it suggests that there is a localised problem in that particular area; the claim of the problem being ‘widespread’ simply isn’t supported by these figures.

And what about Fife, home to Sir Robert Spencer-Nairn, who claimed in Fife Today that there had been ‘a spate of incidents’? According to the BASC data, there were only two reported incidents in Fife during this year-long study. Do two incidents (one of which didn’t even involve the release of ‘vicious’ crows from a trap) constitute ‘a spate of incidents’ or is this indicative of wildly exaggerated claims?

According to the FoI, BASC Scotland will be analysing the data and submitting a report to the Scottish Government. We look forward to reading it, especially to find out how the data were independently verified, how they assessed whether a trap/snare had been deliberately interfered with as opposed to accidentally damaged (e.g. see here) and how they justify the claim that trap interference is ‘widespread’.

Botham off-target

There’s an amusing article in today’s Mail on Sunday from Ian Botham, frontman of the increasingly-ludicrous You Forgot the Birds ‘campaign’, funded by the grouse-shooting industry.

It follows on from last week’s attempt by YFTB to discredit the RSPB (see here). This time, Botham is playing the victim card and is threatening legal action because he thinks that the RSPB has accused him of killing birds of prey (see here).

Playing the victim card is nothing new from the game-shooting industry – we’ve seen it played over and again, especially when video evidence, collected by the RSPB’s Investigations teams, has been used to successfully convict criminal gamekeepers of wildlife crimes. It’s all just so unfair.

Botham also claims that the RSPB is ‘constantly slurring gamekeepers as criminals’. Poor, slurred gamekeepers. Why ever would anyone think their industry is a hot bed of criminal activity against protected wildlife? Perhaps this has something to do with it:

In January 2012, the RSPB reported that since 1990, over 100 gamekeepers had been convicted of raptor persecution crimes (here).

And here’s a list of 29 gamekeepers convicted of wildlife crimes in the last 5 years alone, many of whom were convicted thanks to the work of the RSPB:

Feb 2011: Gamekeeper Connor Patterson convicted of causing animal fights between dogs, foxes and badgers.

May 2011: Gamekeeper Ivan Mark Crane convicted of using an illegal trap.

May 2011: Gamekeeper Ivan Peter Crane convicted of using an illegal trap.

May 2011: Gamekeeper Dean Barr convicted of being in possession of a banned poison.

May 2011: Gamekeeper James Rolfe convicted of being in possession of a dead red kite.

June 2011: Gamekeeper Glenn Brown convicted of using an illegal trap.

October 2011: Gamekeeper Craig Barrie convicted of illegal possession & control of a wild bird

Dec 2011: Gamekeeper Christopher John Carter convicted of causing a fight between two dogs and a fox.

Dec 2011: Gamekeeper Luke James Byrne convicted of causing three animal fights and possession of three dead wild birds (heron, cormorant, buzzard).

Jan 2012: Gamekeeper David Whitefield convicted of poisoning 4 buzzards.

Jan 2012: Gamekeeper Cyril McLachlan convicted of possessing a banned poison.

April 2012: Gamekeeper Robert Christie convicted of illegal use of a trap.

June 2012: Gamekeeper Jonathan Smith Graham convicted of illegal use of a trap.

Sept 2012: Gamekeeper Tom McKellar convicted of possessing a banned poison.

Nov 2012: Gamekeeper Bill Scobie convicted of possessing and using a banned poison.

Jan 2013: Gamekeeper Robert Hebblewhite convicted of poisoning buzzards.

Feb 2013: Gamekeeper Shaun Allanson convicted of illegal use of a trap.

Feb 2013: Gamekeeper (un-named) cautioned for illegal use of a trap.

May 2013: Gamekeeper Brian Petrie convicted for trapping offences.

June 2013: Gamekeeper Peter Bell convicted for poisoning a buzzard.

July 2013: Gamekeeper Colin Burne convicted for trapping then battering to death 2 buzzards.

Sept 2013: Gamekeeper Andrew Knights convicted for storing banned poisons.

Dec 2013: Gamekeeper Wayne Priday convicted for setting an illegal trap.

Feb 2014 Gamekeeper Ryan Waite convicted for setting an illegal trap.

May 2014 Gamekeeper Derek Sanderson convicted for storing five banned poisons.

July 2014 Gamekeeper Mark Stevens convicted for setting illegal traps.

October 2014 Gamekeeper Allen Lambert convicted for poisoning 11 raptors, illegal storage and use of pesticides & possession of a poisoner’s kit.

December 2014 Gamekeeper George Mutch convicted for illegal use of traps, illegal killing of a goshawk, illegal taking of a goshawk, illegal taking of a buzzard.

May 2015 Gamekeeper James O’Reilly convicted for illegal use of leg-hold traps and illegal use of snares.

It’s not that they’re all at it; on the contrary, we personally know some fantastic gamekeepers who contribute a massive amount to wildlife conservation. The problem is, they are few and far between and many within the gamekeeping industry are most definitely at it. You don’t get population-level effects on a species’ distribution and abundance (think hen harriers, golden eagles, peregrines, red kites) if ‘only a few rogues’ are at it.

In a lot of ways, Botham’s attack on the RSPB is a soft target. They’re high profile and subject to strict conditions laid down by the Charity Commission – there’s only so much they can say and do (although some of us think that they could do more than they already are, even within those constraints). However, it’s not the RSPB that Botham & his grouse-shooting industry mates should be worried about. It’s not just the RSPB who are aware of what is going on. He (and the industry he is representing) should perhaps be more concerned about the growing rise in ordinary members of the public who are finding out the truth about the game-shooting industry. We know what’s going on and we’re not hampered by Royal Charters or other bureaucratic constraints. And we’re getting louder and stronger by the day. It’d be foolish to underestimate us.

Update on convicted gin trap gamekeeper James O’Reilly

A few updates on some of the questions we asked yesterday following the conviction of Scottish gamekeeper James O’Reilly (see here)….

1. We asked the Cardross Estate whether O’Reilly was still employed as a gamekeeper on their estate. They have issued the following statement:

CARDROSS ESTATE REFUTES WILDLIFE CRIME ALLEGATIONS

(Issued on behalf of Cardross Estate)

Cardross Estate today issued the following statement after the conviction and sentencing of a gamekeeper at Stirling Sheriff Court on offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, 1981.

Sir Archie Orr-Ewing, owner of Cardross Estate, said: “The reputation of the estate has been unjustly tarnished by the publicity around these court proceedings. The estate does not have any involvement whatsoever in the sporting management of the land in question. The area of land where these offences occurred is let on a long-term lease to a third party who has full rights and responsibilities for the management of sporting activity. The gamekeeper is employed by the third party and has never been employed by the estate.

“Having co-operated fully with the authorities during their investigation and having been asked to be a prosecution witness, I am bitterly disappointed that the Crown Office did not see fit to clarify the estate’s position in its public statement following the case.

“Cardross Estate is an estate that takes its land managcment responsibilities very seriously and is a business focused on the local community and the delivery of sustainable rural enterprise. In particular, we are committed to contributing to the tourism offering of the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park.”

END

According to some media outlets, O’Reilly no longer works on the Cardross Estate and some claim he no longer works in the gamekeeping industry.

2. We asked the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association whether O’Reilly was a member of the SGA, and if so, has he now been booted out. They have issued the following statement, which seems to carefully avoid answering the question:

SGA RESPONSE

Responding to the sentencing of a former gamekeeper, who used an illegal gin trap to catch a buzzard, a spokesman for The Scottish Gamekeepers Association said: “This is the first we have heard about this case but, as an organisation, we are appalled. These actions have no place in modern gamekeeping and show ignorance of the legal requirements which are involved in being in the profession. They are an affront to all those who advocate high standards and take their responsibilities seriously and with care.”

END

Actually, O’Reilly’s criminal activities didn’t show ignorance of the legal requirements; according to the press statement issued by the Crown Office yesterday, O’Reilly had undertaken the snaring course (run by either GWCT or SGA) legally required for anyone wanting to set snares in Scotland. He’d passed the course so he wasn’t ignorant, he just chose to blatantly disregard the law.

We’re still interested in whether O’Reilly was an SGA member at the time he committed these offences. If you’re also interested, you too can email them again: info@scottishgamekeepers.co.uk

3. We asked Scottish Land & Estates whether the Cardross Estate was a member of their organisation and if so, had it now been booted out.

They haven’t yet made a public statement, although they did respond to a private email from one of our blog readers by saying that the Cardross Estate resigned from their organisation in 2012.

4. We asked Environment Minister Dr Aileen Mcleod when the Scottish Government will publish the recently completed Wildlife Crime Penalties Review, in light of the pathetic sentence given to O’Reilly for his barbaric crimes. One of her civil servants has issued an acknowledgement email, saying someone will respond soon.

On a related note, there’s an article here with further details about why the Sheriff didn’t give O’Reilly a more fitting punishment. It includes a suggestion from O’Reilly’s defence agent that the gamekeeper was ‘under pressure from above’. It’ll be interesting to see whether the Crown Office decides to go for a vicarious liability prosecution.

Scottish gamekeeper convicted for using a gin trap on Cardross Estate: gets community service order

James Alfred O’Reilly, 50, a Scottish gamekeeper working on the Cardross Estate in Stirlingshire, has been convicted of four wildlife crime offences, including the use of a gin trap to catch a buzzard. His punishment? It’s the usual pathetic response: he’s been ordered to carry out 240 hours of unpaid work.

Here is the press release from the Crown Office:

At Stirling Sheriff Court today, gamekeeper James O’Reilly was given a Community Payback Order and ordered to carry out 240 hours of unpaid work after having pled guilty to four charges under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

O’Reilly was convicted at Stirling Sheriff Court on 24 April of a number of charged including the use of an illegal trap for the purposes of taking of wild birds on the Cardross Estate in March 2013. Common buzzards, red kites, goshawks and white tailed eagles can all be found nesting in or as regular visitors to the area.

A man walking his dog on the estate, at a location known as Gartur came to an open area next to a pheasant pen where a distressed buzzard was caught in a trap by its leg next to a decomposed deer carcase.

The man released the jaws of the trap from the buzzard’s leg. When it became apparent that the buzzard was unable to fly he took the bird home and called the SSPCA. The SSPCA reported the incident to the police who continued the investigation. They found an illegal trap, which by its nature and placement by the accused was calculated to cause injury to wild birds.

They also found that the accused had set a number of snares in the area. None of which had identification tags on them as required by law.

It was clear to police that there was an issue in relation to the pest control methods employed by the accused and as a result, a search warrant for his house was obtained and executed on 4 April 2013.

In the course of the search, a snare containing decomposed fox parts was found next to a pheasant pen near to accused’s home address. It was apparent that a fox had become snared and the Accused maintains that he shot the fox after it had become trapped, and left the carcase lying. Staff at the Scottish Agricultural College confirmed that the fox caught in the snare had been there for more than 24 hours and possibly from the back end of 2012.

The buzzard was examined by a veterinary surgeon who found it had a severe injury to the right leg just above the foot. He commented that the injuries would have been extremely painful for the bird and would have taken several days to occur. Treatment was provided to the bird but its condition deteriorated and the bird was euthanized on welfare ground as it would never be suitable for release back into the wild.

Notes to Editor

  1. James Alfred O’Reilly (DOB 30/06/1964) of Stirling pleaded guilty on 24 April 2015 at Stirling Sheriff Court to four offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 as below. He was sentenced to 240hrs Community Payback Order, on all charges cumulo:

gin trap* Between 22 March 2013 and 25 March 2013 at Gartur, Cardross Estate , Port of Menteith, you JAMES ALFRED O’REILLY did intentionally or recklessly injure and take a wild bird, namely a buzzard in that you did set a gin trap also known as a leg hold trap on open ground or other similar type of trap which was baited with a deer carcass which trapped said buzzard by the leg, injuring it whereby it had to be humanely euthanased due to its injury; CONTRARY to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 Section 1(1)(a);

* between 1 February 2013 and 4 April 2013 at Tamavoid, Cardross Estate, Port of Menteith, you JAMES ALFRED O’REILLY, whilst carrying out an inspection of a snare, did find an animal, whether alive or dead, caught by said snare and did fail to release or remove said animal namely a fox; CONTRARY to Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Section 11(3)(A);

* between 1 April 2013 and 4 April 2013 at Gartur, Tamavoid and The Big Wood , Cardross Estate , Port of Menteith you JAMES ALFRED O’REILLY did set in position a snare without having been issued an identification number by the Chief Constable under Section 11A(4) of the aftermentioned Act and did set 2 snares at a stink pit , 4 snares at a pheasant release pen and 1 snare at a stink pit, all of which did not have identification tags attached; CONTRARY to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Sections 11A(1) and (5);

* Between 22 March 2013 and 25 March 2013 at Garfur, Cardross Estate, Port of Menteith you JAMES ALFRED O’REILLY did set in position a trap, namely a gin trap also known as a leg hold trap being of such a nature and so placed as to be likely to cause bodily injury to any wild birds coming into contact therewith in that said trap was set on open ground next to bait, namely a deer carcass; CONTRARY to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, Section 5(1)(a).

The requirement to tag snares was introduced by the 2011 Wildlife and Natural Environment Act as part of a suite of measures aimed at improving the accountability of snaring. This requirement came into force on 1st April 2013. Under the new regime, those responsible for setting snares were required to attend a training course, prior to being given an identification number. The accused O’Reilly had been issued with such a number on 23rd March 2013 by the licensing office in Pitt Street, Glasgow.

END

So, here are some questions:

1. Is O’Reilly still employed as a gamekeeper on the Cardross Estate (where they offer driven pheasant and partridge shooting)? Emails to: enquiries@cardrossestate.com

2. Is O’Reilly a member of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, and if so, has he now been booted out? Emails to: info@scottishgamekeepers.co.uk

3. Is the Cardross Estate a member of Scottish Land & Estates, and if so, has it now been booted out? Emails to: info@scottishlandandestates.co.uk

4. When will the review of wildlife crime penalties be published by the Scottish Government (we understand it’s been submitted) and, more importantly, when will the review’s recommendations for change be implemented? Emails to: ministerforenvironment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

You can perhaps combine this last email with one asking the Minister when we can expect to see a General Licence restriction order enforced on land where a poisoned red kite, a poisoned peregrine, and an illegally trapped red kite have been found – see here.

UPDATE 21st May 2015: some responses to these questions here.

New trial date set for gamekeeper Neil Wainwright

A trial date has been set in the case against gamekeeper Neil Wainwright, accused of the alleged mis-use of a trap last year.

Wainwright, 54, of Norbury, near Bishop’s Castle in Shropshire, has denied charges relating to the use of live quail inside a trap in Birch Hill Wood in Gatten, Stiperstones on 22 and 28 July 2014.

At a hearing in February he pleaded guilty to three other charges relating to the storage of firearms, ammunition and poison.

The trial will begin on 16th June 2015.

Previous blog on this case here.

Pesticide disposal scheme reveals massive stash of banned poisons

In February this year the Scottish Government launched the latest ‘pesticide disposal scheme’ – a free service allowing those who are still in possession of certain banned poisons an opportunity to get rid of them without fear of consequence.

We had mixed feelings about this scheme (see here), not least a sense of frustration that ten years after many of these poisons were banned, the criminals still in possession would have yet another opportunity to escape justice. However, this feeling was outweighed by the importance of removing these substances so they could no longer be (illegally) held / used.

Two and a half months in to the scheme, the Scottish Government has today announced that the scheme will end on 29th May 2015 – press release here.

According to this press release, so far the scheme has received requests for 99 poisons to be collected. These are as follows:

Sodium Cyanide (44)

Strychnine (30)

Aluminium Phosphide (8)

Mevinphos (5)

Carbofuran (5)

(Alpha)Chloralose (4)

Unknown (2)

Aldicarb (1)

We were particularly interested in the amount of Carbofuran that had been handed in – apparently more than 80kg from just five sites.

80kg of the gamekeepers’ ‘poison of choice’! That’s an incredibly large stash. To put it in context, the largest stash found to date was 10.5kg – recovered during a raid on Skibo Estate in 2010 after the discovery of three poisoned golden eagles. The RSPB calculated that that was enough to kill every single raptor in Scotland six times over (see here). Bear in mind that Carbofuran is so highly toxic that it only takes a couple of grains to kill; imagine how much damage 80kg of the stuff could do – imagine the equivalent of 80 bags of 1kg sugar and the hundreds of thousands of granules inside each of those bags!

It’s frightening to think how much more Carbofuran has been stockpiled on estates and farms across Scotland. If 80kg has been recovered from land users who have no intention of using it, imagine how much is being kept hidden by those who have no intention of handing it in but every intention of continuing to use it.

It’ll be interesting to see just how much more is handed in before the end of the disposal scheme, and even more interesting to see what sort of sentence the next inevitable poisoning case will bring.

The release of today’s information is interesting to us for another reason, too. On 27th March, one of our blog readers submitted an FoI to the Scottish Government to ask for the following information relating to the pesticide disposal scheme:

1. The type and number of poisons handed in since the scheme began on 23 February 2015 to date.

2. The cost of the scheme to date.

3. The first three letters of postcodes from where the poisons had been collected.

Our blog reader knew that all this information was being collated by the Scottish Government and he also knew that the scheme was on-going, so he qualified his questions by adding ‘to date’ at the end.

Here’s the reply he received last week:

Dear XXXXX

REQUEST UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2004 (EIRs)

Thank you for your request dated 27 March 2015 under the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs).

Your request

You asked to be provided with the following information:

  1. The type and number of poisons handed in since the scheme began on 23 Feb 2015 to date.
  2. The cost of the scheme to date.
  3. The first three letters of postcodes from where the poisons have been collected.

As the information you have requested is ‘environmental information’ for the purposes of the Environmental Information (Scotland) Regulations 2004 (EIRs), we are required to deal with your request under those Regulations.  We are applying the exemption at section 39(2) of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), so that we do not also have to deal with your request under FOISA.

This exemption is subject to the ‘public interest test’.  Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exemption.  We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exemption, because there is no public interest in dealing with the same request under two different regimes.  This is essentially a technical point and has no material effect on the outcome of your request.

Response to your request

While our aim is to provide information whenever possible, in this instance an exception under regulation 10(4)(d) (unfinished or incomplete information) of the EIRs applies to all of the information you have requested. This exemption applies because that information is still in the course of completion.  We are unable to provide the information you have requested because the scheme has not been concluded. As the scheme has not yet closed the data you have requested is still being collated, some of this work is being undertaken by an external administrator. We intend to publish some details in respect of your points 1 and 3 in a press release ahead of the closure of the scheme; this is likely to be issued before the end of May 2015.  When the scheme is formally closed and a final report is given to the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform, further information, including costs related to the scheme will be published.

This exception is subject to the ‘public interest test’. Therefore, taking account of all the circumstances of this case, we have considered if the public interest in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in applying the exception. We have found that, on balance, the public interest lies in favour of upholding the exception. We recognise that there is some public interest in release as part of open, transparent and accountable government, and this will be met by our planned publication. However, this is outweighed by the public interest in ensuring that unfinished or incomplete information which is still in being worked on is not disclosed when it might misinform the public.

END

That’s a fascinating response. They refused to release ‘unfinished or incomplete information’ to an individual member of the public, and yet a week later they publish, er, ‘unfinished or incomplete information’ in an official government press release!

It’s also interesting to note that Scottish Land & Estates published a news article on their website, dated 9th April 2015, stating that more than 80 calls had been taken by the scheme (see here). The question is, how did SLE get that privileged information and did they get it from the Scottish Government?

One rule for one and one rule for another? Surely not.

‘Wildlife crime cannot be tolerated in modern day Scotland’, says Environment Minister

Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod has written an article on wildlife crime that has been published in the Holyrood magazine:

WILDLIFE CRIME CANNOT BE TOLERATED IN MODERN DAY SCOTLAND

In the past year, between April 2014 and February 2015, almost 250 wildlife crimes were recorded by Police Scotland.

That’s 250 too many.

The crimes included persecuting badgers, poisoning birds of prey and trading in some of the world’s most endangered species.

There is no room for complacency – last year saw one of the worst ever bird of prey poisoning cases, with the discovery of 12 dead red kites and four buzzards in Ross-shire, which were confirmed by SASA as having been poisoned.

I want to make it abundantly clear that the illegal poisoning of wildlife cannot – and will not – be tolerated in a modern Scotland.

This is one of our priorities which the Scottish Government is continuing to tackle head-on. I recently launched a scheme, with the support of PAW Scotland partners, to get rid of illegal pesticides which could be used to poison wildlife.

The scheme allows those who know, or suspect, they are in possession of certain pesticides which are illegal, to dispose of them safely and confidentially. Arrangements are also in place for SNH to restrict the use of general licences where there is evidence of wildlife crime.

Here in Scotland we have the strongest wildlife legislation in the UK, and in the last few months we have seen the first ever custodial sentence for the killing of birds of prey and the first conviction of a land owner under the vicarious liability provisions, for crimes committed in 2012.

I believe this sends out a clear message to those who continue to illegally target Scotland’s wildlife that their actions will not be tolerated.

Recently I helped Police Scotland launch its new awareness campaign to tackle wildlife crime in Scottish cities, towns and rural areas.

Figures reported by Police Scotland indicated that the detection rate for wildlife crime has increased from the previous year by almost 13 per cent to a 77 per cent detection rate and I’m pleased to see that more is being done to catch those offenders.

As the Chair of the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime in Scotland I am delighted to support this campaign. In Scotland we have long recognised the value of our wildlife and the importance of protecting it.

Police Scotland’s campaign will play a key role in raising awareness about wildlife crime and what people should do if they encounter it.

Investigations into wildlife crime can be difficult so it is essential that we work closely with our partners to get the message out there and raise public awareness to help us prevent it from happening in the first place.

Last year, the Scottish Government’s second annual wildlife crime report was published in a bid to develop the bigger picture of what offences are occurring in Scotland. Figures in the report showed that the largest volume of wildlife crime in Scotland is poaching related – fish, deer and coursing offences.

While poaching is the most commonly recorded offence, crimes against our rare birds of prey and vulnerable freshwater pearl mussel populations are of most serious concern in terms of damage to Scotland’s ecosystems and our reputation.

We must continue to work with stakeholders to raise awareness and therefore ensure prevention, so that these crimes decrease and stop. We are not there yet but with the help of the PAW Scotland partners and the actions of the public I am confident that we are moving in the right direction.

Dr Aileen McLeod, Minister for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform

END

It’s good to hear from the Environment Minister on this issue. Five months in to her tenure as Environment Minister, she’s been relatively quiet. Perhaps that’s a bit unfair, as we’re comparing her perceived (public) involvement on this issue with that of her predecessor, Paul Wheelhouse, who clearly was very engaged with the subject. She also has a wider portfolio of responsibilities than Wheelhouse had, so of course her time is going to be squeezed. Nevertheless, we haven’t yet seen much evidence that Dr McLeod is coming in with all guns blazing.

Whilst the above article, and sentiment, is to be welcomed, what does it actually amount to? Not very much, to be honest. It’s the same old rhetoric that we’ve been fed for years: ‘it’s a priority’; ‘it won’t be tolerated’; ‘there’s no room for complacency’, yada yada.

Meanwhile, raptor persecution continues and Police Scotland are doing their level best to keep the details from the public domain. We’re aware of several crimes against raptors that have taken place within the last 12 months that still have not been publicised – and we probably don’t know the half of it. It’s interesting to compare this policy of secrecy with the policy of openness being displayed by North Wales Police. One of their wildlife crime officers, Sgt. Rob Taylor, is frequently telling his Twitter followers what wildlife crimes he’s currently investigating. More power to him. His openness doesn’t seem to be affecting the investigation of those offences so what’s the real reason for Police Scotland hiding the facts about the crimes they’re supposedly investigating?

There have been a couple of big success stories in Scotland – the first vicarious liability conviction of a landowner and the first custodial sentence for a raptor-killing gamekeeper. These were both excellent results, there’s no doubt about that, but they were both a long, long time coming and, so far, have proved the exception rather than the rule.

How about the Environment Minister telling us whether the SSPCA will be granted increased investigatory powers? The public consultation closed almost 8 months ago! What’s the decision?

How about the Environment Minister giving us an update on the Govt-commissioned report from Professor Poustie on his review of wildlife crime penalties? That was due ‘early in the New Year’. Where is it?

How about the Environment Minister telling us why SNH haven’t yet publicised any General Licence Restriction Orders for estates where raptor persecution is believed to be taking place? They’ve had the power to enforce such restriction orders since September 2014, for incidents that have taken place since 1st January 2014. What have they been doing for the last seven months? Have they imposed any restriction orders or not? If not, why not?

And please, Minister, will you stop implying that the Ross-shire Massacre only claimed 16 victims. Twenty two raptors were found dead in that one incident. Sure, only 16 have been confirmed as victims of poisoning but the remaining six birds did not all just die of natural causes at the same time, in the same fields where the confirmed poisoned corpses were found. And by the way, can you tell us why Police Scotland has not yet released the name of the poison(s) used to kill those protected species?

Henry’s Tour: Day 20

Monday 27 April Copy

Henry’s arrived in Yorkshire in his quest to find a mate. This should be interesting.

North Yorkshire (includes North York Moors National Park & Yorkshire Dales NP) is the worst county in England for recorded incidents of bird of prey persecution.

Between 2004-2013 there were 70 confirmed raptor persecution incidents. (2014 data not yet published).

These 70 incidents included:

  • At least 26 confirmed incidents involving the illegal use of pesticides – these include the illegal poisoning of 14 red kites, six buzzards, one goshawk, one peregrine plus the finding of a number of poisoned baits; several domestic pets were also poisoned.
  • The confirmed shooting of 25 birds of prey – consisting of 10 buzzards, three red kites, three kestrels, two goshawks, two peregrines plus singles of hen harrier, sparrowhawk, short-eared owl and eagle owl.
  • The illegal trapping of seven birds of prey plus another 11 illegally set traps for raptors.

In connection with these incidents six individuals, all gamekeepers, were prosecuted.

Hen harrier last bred successfully in North Yorkshire in 2007, despite huge areas of suitable habitat.

A Natural England study between 2002 and 2008 showed that of 11 HH breeding attempts recorded in North Yorkshire, only five sites reared any young and most of the sites that failed were believed to be due to human persecution.

#HaveYouSeenHenry

Judicial review of Natural England’s refusal to issue buzzard-killing licence to be heard in June

The judicial review concerning Natural England’s decision to refuse a gamekeeper a licence to shoot buzzards and sparrowhawks to protect his pheasants will take place during a three-day hearing at the High Court in London in June.

The gamekeeper, Ricky McMorn from Northumberland, has received financial support from the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation to bring this review and challenge Natural England’s handling of his licence applications.

A quick recap: in 2013, Natural England secretly provided Mr McMorn with a licence to destroy buzzard eggs and nests in order to ‘protect a pheasant shoot’ in Northumberland.

Later in 2013, Natural England received an application for four more licences, this time to shoot 16 buzzards and three sparrowhawks. Natural England rejected the application.

In 2014, Natural England refused another licence application, this time to shoot ten buzzards to prevent “serious damage” to pheasant poults.

It is these refusals that are being challenged in the judicial review.

Previous blogs on this issue:

25 November 2014: Buzzard licence applicant gets High Court approval for judicial review.

1 October 2013: Why we don’t trust the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation.

26 September 2013: Buzzard licence applicant tries for four more licences.

13 August 2013: Natural England claims release of buzzard licence info ‘not in public interest’.

20 June 2013: Hand in of buzzard petition today at Holyrood.

5 June 2013: Natural England says no to buzzard-killing licence.

5 June 2013: Surely the buzzard licence applicant doesn’t have prior convictions for poison offences?

3 June 2013: Buzzard licensing: turning up the heat.

30 May 2013: Two important questions to ask about the buzzard licence applicant.

25 May 2013: New petition: SNH, do not licence buzzard culling in Scotland.

23 May 2013: Natural England issues licence to destroy buzzard eggs and nests to protect pheasants.

10 January 2013: The buzzard blame game.

13 June 2012: #Buzzardgate aftermath.

30 May 2012: DEFRA backs down on buzzard ‘management’ trial.

24 May 2012: DEFRA responds to public outcry over buzzard ‘management’ trial.

23 May 2012: RSPB response to DEFRA’s proposed (illegal) buzzard trial.

21 May 2012: Buzzard ‘management’ trial gets govt approval and £375K funding.

Henry’s Tour: Day 19

Fri 24 April Copy

Henry went for a skydance across the lawns of Holkham Hall in north Norfolk.

This place is home to Viscount Coke, Vice Chairman of the Board of Trustees of that well-known raptor-loving organisation Songbird Survival.

In 2000, a Holkham Estate gamekeeper was prosecuted for 17 offences including the shooting of two kestrels and the poisoning of a third. He kept his job on the estate. Case write-up here.

In 2009, a dead buzzard was found at Holkham. It had been shot. The Holkham Estate put up a £500 reward for information leading to a conviction, as did the RSPB. Nobody was ever prosecuted.

Henry didn’t see any female hen harriers during his visit but he did watch a buzzard and three red kites. One kite had what some would call the ‘Malta Moult’ – a large hole blown through the feathers of one wing.

Henry thought it was time to get out of Norfolk but not before he called in for tea and cake with the legendary Richard Porter, author of the 1974 classic Flight Identification of European Raptors. More recently, Richard’s studies on the local buzzard population helped to convict Stody Estate gamekeeper Allen Lambert. Lambert had claimed that the ten poisoned buzzards found on the Stody Estate had been killed elsewhere and then ‘dumped’ on his estate in an attempt to set him up. His defence was to claim that they couldn’t possibly have been poisoned at Stody because there weren’t that many local buzzards to start with. He hadn’t banked on the evidence of one of the world’s leading raptor ID experts, who had recorded 233 buzzard sightings and had counted 73 pairs. Oops.

Thurs 23 April Copy