Tag: gamekeeper

Implications of the Lochindorb hare snare verdict

The almost four-year long Lochindorb Estate hare snare trial concluded today at Inverness Sheriff Court. The accused, former head gamekeeper and long-time SGA committee member David Taylor was found not guilty of illegally using snares to catch mountain hares on the Lochindorb Estate in 2009.

This has been a lengthy and complex case, seen by many as an important ‘test’ case. For previous blog entries see here, here, here, here, here and here.

The ‘not guilty’ verdict, however, only applies to the particular circumstances of this specific case. On this occasion, at that specific location and at that specific time, the evidence was deemed insufficient to merit a conviction. Sheriff Abercrombie accepted that Taylor was operating within the law and in good faith. This verdict though, does not mean that a future case with a different set of specific circumstances, could not result in a conviction. The verdict does NOT mean that it is legal to snare mountain hares in general terms; only within the terms of this particular case.

One of the key issues was whether a snare could be described as a ‘trap’. The prosecution said yes, the defence argued no. Sheriff Abercrombie deemed that a snare could be described as a trap. This is important for future potential cases.

The defence had also argued that the snares in question (the w-shaped snare) were selective; i.e. that they only caught the target species. Several gamekeepers spoke as defence witnesses and stated that in all their (combined) years of snaring, they’d never caught a non-target species using this snare-type. Whether you believe that or not is up to you – the fact of the matter was that the prosecution could not provide evidence to show that the w-shaped snare was indiscriminate. This should hopefully be a moot point in future cases as the use of the w-shaped snare to trap mountain hares has since become prohibited. Under the Snares Scotland Order (2010), it is no longer legal to use a snare in a way that an animal could become partially or wholly suspended.

The other important issue highlighted by this case was the lack of current scientific understanding of mountain hare population ecology in Scotland. We hope SNH will get their act together and implement an appropriate research and monitoring strategy for what many believe is a keystone species; i.e. one that plays an important role in the survival of other species such as the golden eagle and probably the pine marten.

BBC news article here

SGA statement here

Defence agent’s statement here

Lochindorb hare snare verdict

Former Lochindorb Estate head gamekeeper and SGA Committee Member, David Taylor, has been found not guilty of setting illegal snares to catch mountain hares.

More to follow…

Gamekeeper charged with six offences

North Yorkshire police logoaA gamekeeper from Pickering, North Yorkshire, has been charged with six offences for the illegal use of cage traps to capture a buzzard.

This is the gamekeeper whose arrest was reported last October (see here). He has still not been named, and nor has the estate/shoot where the alleged offences took place. It is not yet known whether he is a member of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation.

He has been charged with six offences under the Wildlife & Countryside Act and the Animal Welfare Act. He has been bailed to attend Scarborough Magistrates court next month. Article in the Ryedale Gazette & Herald here.

In other court news, the long-awaited verdict in the Lochindorb Estate hare snare trial is due tomorrow…..

Eagle persecution featured on the One Show

One-Show-smallYesterday evening, the BBC’s One Show ran a feature on golden eagle satellite-tracking in Scotland, featuring two legendary raptor fieldworkers from the RSPB, Stuart Benn and Brian Etheridge.

Thanks to these two, the message about illegal raptor persecution was heard by a mainstream tv audience (an estimated 5 million viewers) both during the film (when they were sat-tagging an eaglet) and then again when Stuart was interviewed in the studio.

Two top blokes doing a top, top job. Well done!

For anyone who missed it, catch it on BBC iPlayer here (20.37 min – 28.41 min) for a limited period.

Here is a link to Stuart’s blog about the filming day last summer.

“Why does a ‘keeper need an incinerator again?”

scotsman_logo_200The title for this blog entry is taken from a comment written in response to an article in the Scotsman this weekend.

The article, written by Alastair Robertson, is entitled: “Shooting and Fishing: It is relatively easy to whip up antagonism towards grouse moor owners” and discusses the precarious position of England’s hen harrier breeding population. Robertson mentions Mark Avery’s proposed campaign to ban driven grouse shooting if there isn’t a marked improvement in this year’s nesting pairs. Robertson suggests that the campaign would probably be unsuccessful, although he doesn’t write it off completely. He’s smart to not underestimate the public’s growing anger and frustration on this issue. The article can be read here.

There’s a good counter-argument to Robertson’s article, published today on the Scotsman’s letters page. Read it here.

The importance of the “vicious” gamekeeper’s conviction

Hebblewhite carbofuranFollowing on from yesterday’s blog about the conviction of “vicious” gamekeeper Robert William Hebblewhite (see here), more information has emerged about what happened in court.

We mentioned yesterday how unusual it was for a gamekeeper to be convicted of actually killing the dead raptor(s) found on their land; typically, in case after case, the gamekeeper is convicted for the lesser offence of “possession” (e.g. of poison) and the charge for the actual killing is dropped. This has caused an immense amount of frustration, not only for those investigators who often spend months working on getting a case to court, but also for us, the members of the public, who feel a massive sense of injustice every time it happens.

Well, not so in this case. If you read the article published here, you’ll notice that the judge (in this case District Judge John Stobard) was having none of it.

The prosecutor (Mark Holmes) contended that Hebblewhite’s motive was clear. He was the gamekeeper on this shoot, with responsibilities for pest control. The shoot had been losing birds because buzzards were in the area (his words, not ours!). Pheasant carcasses laced with Carbofuran had been found next to the Carbofuran-poisoned buzzards. A jar of Carbofuran was found in Hebblewhite’s van (see photo). Hebbelewhite’s van had been seen going to the scene on several occasions.

Hebblewhite had pleaded guilty to possession of Carbofuran (the lesser offence) but not for poisoning the buzzards.

The defence argued that the poisoner could have been anyone.

District Judge John Stobard wasn’t fooled. He is reported to have said this:

“The birds died from Carbofuran and here in a van is the very stuff  that killed them. The defence says it could have been anyone. Well, could it? I’m not here to discuss the case as a philosophical argument. What is the reality of the matter?

This defendant is here to secure the presence of the shoots that take place by the way of being a gamekeeper. He must look after the pheasants and protect them from other animals.

I think he has done so in an old fashioned and particularly nasty way by lacing the pheasant with Carbofuran in the full knowledge the buzzards would be killed.

It can only point to one conclusion – he did it“.

So finally, here’s a judge who put two and two together and didn’t make five. It’s quite telling though, that this is such an unusual result that we need to highlight it here. What does that say about how our justice system deals with raptor persecution crimes? What does it tell us about our low expectations for these court cases?

In Scotland we’re so used to seeing ridiculous legal obstacles placed in the way of justice that we now expect the poisoner/trapper/killer to get off. “Did you see the defendant place the poison? Did you see the eagle/buzzard/goshawk/red kite actually eat from that very poisoned bait? Was it filmed? Did you have permission to film on that land? Can you forensically match the poison on the bait/inside the dead raptor with the big stash of illegal poison found in the defendant’s house /shed /garage /vehicle /porch /gamebag /jacket pocket? No? Well then he can’t be convicted”.

Well done again to the RSPB Investigations Team, to the CPS, and particularly to District Judge John Stobard for seeing the bleedin’ obvious and acting upon it.

UPDATE: There’s an excellent news piece on this conviction from BBC Look North. Decent coverage and explains that raptor poisoning is a national issue. Great stuff. Available on BBC iPlayer here for limited period (starts at 11.58 – ends at 14.40).

“Vicious” gamekeeper convicted of killing buzzards

A poisoned buzzard
A poisoned buzzard

The RSPB Investigations Team scored another victory today as a Lincolnshire gamekeeper was convicted of killing two buzzards and possessing the banned poison Carbofuran.

Robert William Hebblewhite, 71, of Appleby, Scunthorpe, was fined £1,950 at Lincoln Magistrates Court.

The two buzzards were found dead in Sept 2011 on land at Bonsall Lane in Blyton, near Gainsborough, where he works as a gamekeeper. Toxicology tests revealed the birds had died from Carbofuran poisoning from poison-laced pheasant carcasses. The RSPB said Hebblewhite was in possession of enough Carbofuran to destroy all the raptors in Lincolnshire.

It’s not known whether Hebblewhite is a member of the National Gamekeepers Organisation. Hopefully they will put out a statement to clarify his membership status and to condemn this disgusting, persistent practice.

Congratulations to the RSPB guys for a successful prosecution. Importantly, he was convicted for actually killing the birds and not just for the lesser offence of possession of poison, which is the result we usually see. Well done indeed.

RSPB press release here

New gamekeepers just as bad as the old ones

No changeThere’s a comical news item on BBC News today about the new generation of gamekeepers.

The Borders College and Scotland’s Rural University College in Fife said ‘the skills obtained by their students [on gamekeeping courses] were proving valuable to landowners’. Yes, aren’t they just.

According to Angus McNicol of Cawdor Estates, “It’s a highly-trained profession these days. It’s very different to how things were in the past“. Really?

What short memories they all have. Here are a couple of recent examples of newly-trained students, fresh out of gamekeeping college, who now have wildlife crime convictions:

1. Lewis Whitham, who was 19 when he was caught placing a Carbofuran-laced rabbit bait out on the hill on Leadhills Estate (see here).

2. James Rolfe, who was 19 when he was caught with a severely-injured dead red kite in the back of his landrover on Moy Estate (see here).

How very inconvenient when we’re supposed to believe that the criminal gamekeeper is of the old school, now dying out and being replaced by a new generation of ‘highly-trained professionals’. Nice try.

BBC News article here.

Gamekeeper’s acquittal upheld by appeal court

A Scottish gamekeeper whose trial collapsed earlier this year on a legal technicality has had his acquittal upheld by the Appeal Court.

Anstruther Peter Smith, a beat-keeper on Airlie Estate near Kirriemuir, Angus, was originally charged with several alleged wildlife crime offences after three buzzards were discovered in a crow cage trap at Wellbank Wood in March 2011. It had been argued that allegedly the trap didn’t meet the standards required under the General Licence. Two buzzards were immediately released but one was treated for several days before release for injuries believed to have been sustained by the buzzard’s attempts to escape from the trap.

The case went to trial at Forfar Sheriff Court in June 2012, where Smith’s defence agent argued that an SSPCA inspector’s evidence should be ruled inadmissable on the basis that the defendant’s interview was ‘unfair’. Sheriff Kevin Veal agreed and Smith was acquitted.

The Crown appealed this decision but an appeal committee (Lady Paton, Lady Smith and Lord Wheatley) recently upheld it and refused the appeal. The full details of the case and the decision can be read here.

An overview article in the Courier here.

An injured buzzard inside a crow cage trap

RSPB walks out of hen harrier ‘dialogue’

tec_logo_16271This isn’t especially new news, as it happened in the summer, but we were reminded of it today after reading something on Mark Avery’s blog – more on that later – and it does seem pertinent to blog about it now.

So, most readers will be aware of the Environment Council’s ‘Hen Harrier Dialogue’ – a process that started in 2006 that aimed to bring ‘stakeholders’ together to try and work out a way of resolving the hen harrier / grouse moor conflict in England (see here for website). Those stakeholders involved in these dialogue meetings included the usual suspects such as BASC, Countryside Alliance, Country Land and Business Association, GWCT, Moorland Association, National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, RSPB, Hawk & Owl Trust, Northern England Raptor Groups etc.

The ‘dialogue’ process has produced an awful lot of documents (and a lot of awful documents, see here) and meeting reports (see here), and a strong interest in pursuing a trial on a ‘quota system’ for hen harriers – a controversial idea spawned by Steve Redpath several years ago. In simplistic terms, this quota system would mean that grouse moor owners would ‘allow’ a certain number of breeding pairs (number yet to be established) and once a ‘ceiling’ had been reached, then they would be ‘allowed’ to remove harrier broods (non-lethally) to other parts of the UK away from grouse moors. This idea is still being discussed, although it brings with it obvious ethical and legal debates.

Hen harrier being removed from illegal trap on Moy EstateSome argue that conservation groups shouldn’t be sitting at the table with representatives from an industry that has been responsible for killing off England’s breeding hen harrier population. Others argue that the quota scheme may be the best way forward because at least there’d be some harriers, which is a better proposition than having none. Others have suggested that the quota system would never get off the ground anyway because the grouse moor owners would have to ‘allow’ a certain number of breeding hen harriers on their estates and they’ve shown themselves incapable of tolerating any.

Whatever your point of view, the bottom line is that six years on from the start of the dialogue process, and after all that talking over egg sandwiches and coffee, the English hen harrier breeding population has been reduced to one known pair. That’s it. Just the one pair. In a country that has suitable habitat to support over 300 breeding pairs.

This summer, the RSPB made a bold move and decided to walk away from the dialogue process. They said that as hen harriers have been systematically eradicated from English grouse moors then there was no longer any conflict and therefore no point in spending any more time talking about it. Instead, they intended to get on with their own plans for hen harrier recovery.

It’s not yet known what will happen to the Environment Council dialogue process now a major player has walked away. As far as we’re aware, there are still many questions about the lawfulness of the proposed trial quota scheme so it’s unclear whether attempts will still be made to push that through.

So what next for English hen harriers? After the recent sad story of the illegal shooting of Bowland Betty (see here), in addition to all the other horror stories we keep reading about from English and Scottish grouse moors (e.g. see here, here, here, here, here), is it time for a different approach? It’s obvious that the authorities can’t, or won’t deal with illegal persecution, and the grouse-shooting industry can’t, or won’t put a stop to it either. An alternative suggestion has been put forward by Mark Avery – unless things miraculously improve for breeding hen harriers in Northern England in 2013 then it will be time to start the campaign, on 12 August 2013, to end grouse shooting (see here for Mark’s blog).

Up until now we’d been supporters of the idea of estate-licensing schemes rather than an outright ban. Licensing seemed a fair and reasonable approach to regulate an industry so clearly incapable of expelling its criminal elements. But now?  The time for being reasonable has long since passed. Count us in, Mark.

For our anagram fans: Grouse moor – morgue or so