Tag: gamekeeper

2012 wildlife crime conference: Nevin Hunter (NWCU)

This is the second blog in the series focusing on presentations made at the recent police wildlife crime conference in Scotland. This time we look at what the new head of the National Wildlife Crime Unit, Nevin Hunter, had to say. (For background info on Nevin, see here).

Nevin Hunter, NWCU

“Ok, you know we’ve got UK priorities, erm, you’ve heard mention already of the national intelligence model and the way in which we try and work and deal with wildlife crime and I’m not going to focus on that too much, I’m going to focus on some other aspects. Erm, you know, everything we’re about now is about harm reduction really in terms of, of, wildlife crime, erm, you know, we’re looking at national crime threats and four distinct areas of work because many of you will be aware of this in terms of its enforcement but as I’ve gone around speaking to a number of people from, erm, a number of different partner organisations over the last few weeks I’ve been trying to stress something really and that, that actually a lot of the prevention, intelligence and enforcement has been having a fourth element to it that, and that’s all around reassurance because if we want to get people to engage with us and support us in the fight against wildlife crime we’ve got to think about that as a virtuous circle if we can, if we can, er, have effective prevention, we get good intelligence, we get effective enforcement, that is going to build reassurance amongst those people who are supporting us, erm, that will then lead in itself to more preventative actions, intelligence, enforcement and that’s what I talk about in terms of virtuous circle, so it’s really important that we continue to build upon that.

Erm, I put this slide up just for one reason alone. We are the UK National Wildlife Crime Unit and, er, it’s really important that everybody understands we’ve got the UK perspective, you know, we’ve shown over the last few years, erm, things like Operation RAMP that we really can deliver at an international level, erm, some of you know me well, in the last three and a half years I’ve spent seconded to, to Animal Health, erm, dealing with CITES endangered species issues, erm, and bird registration issues and have been, you know, I wrote the UK operation order for Operation RAMP that a number of you in the audience will have been involved with, er, albeit that I was working then with the civil service, erm, dealing with, with those types of issues. Erm, but we can do this work, what we’ve got to remember though, erm, you know, we’ve shown we can operate at an international level, er, we can provide operational support, erm, and I’ve got mutual administrative systems and regional mutual assistance treaty, right, we can, we can do that type of work, we’ve shown we can do that and we’ve really built on that and we’ll continue to do so but I look at it a lot of the work we do that at an international level is core business to us now and we know how to deal with that, we, you know, CITES is a priority we can deal with that sort of work but I’m very conscious coming in to this role with the UK National Wildlife Crime Unit it’s really important to me that we start delivering and really thinking about the priorities that we’ve got in the UK.

Erm, now you can’t, you can’t actually get a picture of a black hole but one of the issues that people regularly, sort of regularly flag to me up that, er, the last several weeks the feeling at times that, that the National Wildlife Crime Unit can be seen as a bit of a black hole in that lots of things come in to us but you guys and girls out there are dealing with things operationally on the ground what you see come out from us. Now that doesn’t mean that we’re not working hard, you know, I, I know how hard the people in the unit worked, I worked really closely with Brian and the team over the last few years, erm, they all work incredibly hard, erm, dealing with a number of priority areas but I’m very conscious that your perception of us out there may not be as good as it could be in terms of where we’re delivering at a UK level. We really do deliver at an international level, that’s quite clear. Erm, and I want to look at, focus about, erm, perhaps things that we ought to be looking at, now these are my perceptions and some of them are my views so please, erm, I hope I’m not going to insult anybody but I think you need to think about these things.

Erm, I think there needs to be a re-focus on the UK wildlife crime priorities, are all of these relevant, erm, are they things that we can deliver on? Erm, we need to perhaps consider and review how we deliver the processes, can we define these better for wildlife crime, erm, those of you who see it and most of you certainly from a policing point of view will get copied in to the strategic and tactical assessments that we make, they are, they’re very long documents and when I’ve gone around speaking to people the vast majority of people have said we don’t read all of them, we read the little bits that are of interest to us, but there’s a huge amount of time spent in the unit putting those documents together. Now, concerns are raised about how relevant they are in terms of how timely they are, er, because we’re trying to process a mass of information, get that into those types of documents, erm, and we are doing it, that, in the best way we can, is it the fact that we’ve got a large number of priorities, the fact we’re being asked to produce very large documents actually as effective are we being as effective as we can be with that?

Erm, I see that role for the head of the unit going ahead now is going to be to drive action by the priority delivery groups, er, and when I talk about that I’m talking about outcomes, erm, I went to a meeting recently with Mr Crompton and Brian Stuart, erm, and Mr Benyon the UK Minister and I know that ministers, you know, across the UK are looking at the whole issues, it’s about outcomes now, we’ve got to be outcome-driven so we’ve got to be looking at how we deliver, we’ve got wildlife crime priorities in the UK and I’ll be making sure we deliver those, er, and I see it as a role for me in the future with my team to help drive through those UK priorities.

Erm, in terms of operation ways, erm, way ahead, erm, I think we need to make sure that we make the priorities relevant to you. We’ve got to be looking at effective disruption of criminality, yeah? If we’re going to use the national intelligence model to its best effect we need to get it in there and disrupting criminality, yeah? It needs to be and there’s a role for me and my team in that. We need to make it relevant to you, erm, so I see now that there should be a role of operational support from the head of unit, erm, you know, when we get large complex investigations, erm, from a policing point of view we’re going to look at silver command type structure, bronze, silver, gold command as you’ll be aware of from a policing point of view, you know, we’ve got to be thinking then about what roles, erm, what roles somebody like a silver commander, a lot of silver commanders are going to be involved, erm, perhaps we’re looking at inspectors, chief inspectors, superintendents probably going to be involved with some of these complex cases with no understanding of wildlife crime. You may have gone and made a business case to them to get the job and to run it, erm, but is there a role for somebody like me to come and provide the tactical advisor bit for an operational silver commander to make sure they’re able to make the best decisions and I don’t think we’ve played that role in the past, erm, but with my sort of background now I bring that into the, into the equation to be able to support and when we may get complex operations, erm, and I think that that’s a way in which we can connect with you.

I think we need to be looking as well at, erm, if we look, if there’s a perception that we might be a bit of a black hole, yeah? You want to see stuff, and this is what people are telling me, you want to see stuff coming out of the unit, er, I know Colin and others within the unit have discussed over the last year or two about whether we could look at something like a weekly dissemination to yourselves. Erm, the national domestic extremism unit produces a weekly update of all extremism issues around the UK, erm, going out to all forces across the UK giving updates of the major issues. Perhaps we need to be looking at that, erm, if you’ve got ideas on that or things you’d like to see us bring in to that type of document please let us know. Now we may have to look at it in terms of integrity within the unit in terms of our staffing because we are challenged at the moment but we want to move towards something where not only are you putting information and intelligence into us, you know we welcome intelligence all the time, but we want to be putting stuff out to you because we need, we need that virtuous circle again, we need you to be linked in to what we’re doing and to see you actually getting stuff coming out of us.

Erm, I think we can look as well at, to consider platforms, erm, such as the police on-line knowledge area, now that’s hosted at the moment by the national police improvement agency, erm, and under something called POKA, that’s as I say the police on-line knowledge area, er, it’s effectively a secure messaging, er, system, message boarding system. Now I’ve been talking about this via email and discussion the last few weeks and that’s an opportunity perhaps if we could put, develop wildlife communities, er, coordinate that according to in terms of the police communities where we can then start to share, er, information, knowledge, understanding, er, will we get any of the sort of developments that the, er, sheriff was talking about earlier on, can we feed things into there, feed peoples experiences so that you’ve got an opportunity to look at things that may be going on across the, er, Scotland and the wider UK, er, where we can learn from because we need to take these opportunities.

Ok, just to finish off, enforcement challenges, erm, I think key for what we do in the future has got to be about support the majority of people to undertake lawful activities, that’s key about what we do. Erm, targeting the minority of those who undermine, er, and, and who operate at local, national and serious and organised levels, you know, we’ve got, we’ve got to look at that and, and I flagged that up and I’ll give you two examples of why I think it’s, ok, we’ve got to mean business and I’m flagging two issues here, poaching, ok? It’s really important that we harness the energy of people like gamekeepers, factors, landowners and others to tackle across Scotland, er, and the rest of the UK with a, with something like potentially a national operation. That’s one of the things that, er, in the last few weeks I’ve been speaking to, er, Scottish Land Estates and, er, National Gamekeepers down in, down in the south of the border now, you know, is there potential for things like operations, national operations and we need to harness those energies. Whilst we want people like gamekeepers on side, erm, and there’s also the potential that when looking at raptor persecution that we, you know, anybody who’s allowed to use, uses or allows to be used things like carbofuran and that sort, that’s a photograph on there from a poisoning incident, erm, erm, that I dealt with several years ago down in Devon, similar types of things, somebody’s been squirting carbofuran granular form on to a pheasant poult, putting it out to try and kill buzzards, erm, people have got to understand that there’s potential that if they’re, if they’re doing that then now, you know, there’s a likelihood they’ll go to jail, now the finger gets pointed all the time at gamekeepers so I’m saying on the one hand well let’s work with gamekeepers to potentially push forward things like anti-poaching initiatives, work with them at the same time saying we need help to deal with the persecution of raptors, erm, so we’ve got to, got to get people on our side, erm, and that I see as something that I’ve got a big part to play in trying to drive things forward and show that we’re tackling the UK priorities.”

[Jesus Christ. Somebody needs to get these NWCU people on to a public speaking training course. Although in all fairness to Nevin, it looks as though he wasn’t properly briefed about his audience. Even so, get rid of the jargon, get rid of the bureaucracy and simplify your message. E.g. “Hello everyone, I think NWCU has a good track record at an international level but I recognise that we’ve been a bit shit at a national level and I intend to address that issue. We need your help to accomplish that”. Who cares about which model is used, or whether the commander has a bronze, silver or gold certificate for cycling proficiency? WE DON’T CARE, NEVIN! What we care about is whether you and your team can get results and bring more of those who continue to persecute raptors and other wildlife, to justice. That’s it. A helpful hint: launching a national operation in partnership with gamekeepers is unlikely to improve your unit’s credibility with the raptor workers. Just saying…]

2012 wildlife crime conference: Charlie Everitt (NWCU)

The 2012 annual police wildlife crime conference took place a couple of weeks ago. Quite a few of this year’s presentations were relevant to raptor persecution so we’ll be commenting on these in due course. To start off the series we’ll focus on what Charlie Everitt had to say. Charlie is the Scottish Investigative Support Officer at the UK National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU). See here for more details.

Charlie Everitt: Update on Raptor Persecution

“Scottish Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group, and that’s a mouthful, erm, has been concentrating more on poisonings just at the moment, and also on processes so that we can get things right in order to take things forward for core purposes. Consequently we’re just finishing off and hoping to sign off at the next meeting an evidence gathering protocol. Now this is guidance and best practice for organisations who are likely to come across raptor persecution victims, er, giving advice and guidance on who they should contact, how the, er, any carcasses should be recovered and where they should be handed in to, so it’s giving best practice in order to maximise our chances for convictions in court so we get the process right. So that should be signed off, er, at the next meeting.” [See here for a previous blog about an earlier draft of this protocol. We haven’t seen the final version yet but look forward to seeing it in the near future].

“And similarly we’re looking at, er, another protocol with regards to satellite tagged birds, and this is a case where we have birds that have been satellite tagged and maybe the tag, er, stops giving off a signal, erm, or the signal remains stationary, just a protocol as to what we should do, er, in order to take the next step in order to recover the satellite and to investigate what’s happened. So just to make sure that we are lawful in what we are doing. So that’s a protocol as well that should get signed off very soon.

And the third angle, and it’s taking up a fair bit of time, is looking at a very new approach to the whole raptor, erm, raptor persecution issue. Now I can’t really say a great deal more on this at the minute, it’s in its early stages of development just now but when it is it will be put through tests and if it is fit for purpose it will be rolled out and, erm, yes you’ll all be made well aware of it when it does emerge.

We’ve also been looking to the use of science to try and benefit from what science can deliver to us. Now the science of course can back up intelligence and information crucially and the science has been used to good effect when combined with information and intelligence in a presentation to Northern Constabulary last year about the red kites on the Black Isle and their failure to manage to expand from there. So I think that was a good example of just how the two can sit together.” [Eh?]

“The Raptor Study Group of course do a lot of good work with regards to monitoring, erm, raptors and are able to work out where black holes might appear where we should have raptors and where there might not be some. Now there might be good reason for these black holes appearing, [no shit, Sherlock!] er, but what it does do, as I say, when you mix the intelligence and information with the science we get the fuller picture of what might be happening on the land there.

And the final thing we’re looking at doing is to ensure that we can capture all the information from the Raptor Study Group because they’re the people who are out on the land and if they do have any snippets of information we want to make sure that we capture all that intelligence and information in the National Wildlife Crime Unit through the five X five X five system, so that’s, er, er, another area which I’m looking to address very soon.

Now we’ve had some prosecutions, er, either concluded, erm, or, er, occurring during 2011, er, just run through some for you just as an update. In May a shoot manager in Skibo was fined £3,300 for possessing 10.5 kilograms of carbofuran, er, that was the biggest haul we’ve ever recovered in Scotland. And also in May last year a keeper from Moy was fined £1,500 for the possession of a dead red kite. On in October a ‘keeper from Huntly was fined £250 for the illegal use of a cage trap and possession of an illegally trapped buzzard. In November two photographers from London and Norwich were fined £600 and £500 respectively for recklessly disturbing a pair of white-tailed sea eagles at a nest in Mull. In January of this year a former gamekeeper from Biggar was ordered to carry out 100 hours of community service for poisoning four buzzards with alphachloralose and this is a guy who had been convicted before back in 2008. And also in January of this year a, er, another keeper from Lamington was fined £635 for possession of carbofuran. Now for me I think that’s a really good return for one year’s worth of work, er, and there used to be years when we only got two or three convictions in a year, now we have a good number and, er, I think buried inside all of those results is excellent partnership working which I think we must recognise with all our partner agencies.”

[We believe it’s misleading to use these cases as an indicator of success. What Charlie failed to mention is that in some of these cases (Skibo, Moy and Lamington) the only successful charges related to ‘possession’. Nobody was actually charged for poisoning the raptors that were found at each of these sites (and in the Moy case, there were also other offences that related to the illegal use of spring traps, for which nobody was charged). It looks like the Crown Office has gone for the minimum charge possible (i.e. possession) just to secure a conviction. To put this in context, it would be like claiming a success if someone had gone on a killing rampage using a car but was only convicted for not having any road tax. One of the other cases mentioned (Biggar – i.e. David Whitefield from Cullter Allers Farm, who already had a previous conviction for wildlife crime) was given a pathetic 100 hours community service order for poisoning four buzzards! Not good enough and certainly not an indication of ‘a really good return for one year’s worth of work’].

“The 2011 poisoning figures as the Minister suggested was significantly down, er, er, which is great news and very, very welcome to us to hear. Erm, all I’ll say is let’s see if we can continue that downward trend for the next three to five years and actually, and then, erm, solidify into a trend so that we do have this downward movement in poisonings but very grateful for anything where we have a drop in poisonings and that is, erm, excellent news.”

[Charlie failed to distinguish between reported poisoning incidents and actual poisoning incidents. There’s quite a difference and this should put the 2011 poisoning figures into context. He also failed to acknowledge the other methods of illegal killing and their impact on the overall issue of raptor persecution in Scotland. See here for previous blog on this].

“The hotspot maps meantime continue to help the police to focus their attention and, erm, identify where the areas need to be for resources to be deployed.

Now a few years back Lothian & Borders police had a pesticides dog that was able to sniff out carbofuran but it was very quickly withdrawn after there were some health and safety concerns. Well I’ve been having this chat with some of the dog handlers across Lothian & Borders and, er, they have told me that that dog is now available again for any searches, er, which Scotland want to undertake with regards to carbofuran. So that’s I think a positive move they’ve managed to sort out any health and safety issues there and just to put a little bit of context into that, Spain now have 15 dogs that can sniff out carbofuran and other poisons. Carbofuran poisoning has dropped by 40% since the early 2000s so we can think about the impact of the dogs.”

[Again, Charlie has only given half the story here. Yes, in parts of southern Spain (but not all!) the number of reported poisoning incidents has dropped by 40% since sniffer dogs were employed from 2004 onwards. However, crucially, there has also been a concurrent effort to increase enforcement against the poisoners. This includes the use of fines that have a real deterrent (up to €200,000 [~£167,000!]) as well as prison sentences; the temporary closure of the hunting area where poison has been detected; the suspension of hunting rights where the hunting methods are considered to have an unsustainable effect on natural resources; the employment of specialised units (x 3, containing 18 dogs) to patrol areas for the detection of poison – these patrols include ‘emergency inspections’ after poison has been reported, as well as ‘routine inspections’ of hotspots where the use of poison is suspected; and the use of three toxicology labs for poison testing. This is particularly interesting as when poison has not been detected in the first lab, but the use of poison is still suspected based on forensic evidence found at the crime scene (e.g. presence of certain insects), then the carcass/bait is submitted to one of two other labs that use more powerful techniques. In 2010, poison was detected in 38% of these carcasses/baits even though it was undetected at the first lab.

So yes, Charlie, the use of one single sniffer dog in Scotland is a positive move, but without the wider enforcement measures as outlined above, we’d be exceptionally naïve to expect that what has been achieved in parts of southern Spain will be replicated here in Scotland].

“Vicarious liability is also, erm, very much in discussion at the moment and I think last year I described myself as being cautiously optimistic about it. Well this year I’m very optimistic about it, er, with all the work that has been going on, er, behind the scenes and, er, what I would say is that this is not something that is just going to be a case of well we can’t get the person who has put out the poison so let’s just go and charge the landowner, this is going to require a lot of work, er, by any police forces looking into it, er, and looking to, to, er, look at charges of vicarious liability. The industry have also looked into it and have indeed a number of organisations in order to understand what they need to do to fulfil their obligations and that is to be welcomed because it does give us a minimum standard across the, er, industries which is as I say very, very welcomed.

So I was interested in the Minister’s comment as well that, erm, I got the impression that he wasn’t really looking for many prosecutions from this, erm, he was hoping that this would sort of be a Sword of Damocles if anybody was to continue poisoning so, er, I think with some of the work that’s been going on in the Raptor Priority Delivery Group that I think that is a very realistic possibility that we will get things sorted before we ever have to resort to vicarious liability.

One final thing, well another thing I’d just like to, er, just bring to your attention is a egg collector who was, lived down in London, erm, and his house was searched, a number of eggs removed including some golden eagle and osprey, erm, eggs which had been taken from Scotland. The CPS did some work, er, with one of the partner organisations and sought an ASBO against him and although he’s currently in jail, when he re-emerges he will not be allowed to enter Scotland during the nesting season for the next ten years. Now that’s a very powerful piece of legislation and a powerful condition to put on him and it’s something which I’ve asked for them to see if we can get hold of the paperwork to look at the procedure to see if we can do some, mirror something like that up in Scotland because it’s not just for, erm, for egg collecting that this is relevant, I can see other angles of hare coursing, er, deer coursing and the like so, er, that is going to be an interesting development to see what how it transpires.

Finally on the raptor persecution side, these are the guys who make up the Scottish Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group. Now there have been articles that are out in the public domain where we actually have organisations, people from organisations that are representative of the group, trying to drive wedges in against other organisations which, er, are in that group as well, which is often very disruptive and really doesn’t help us with the trying to take the full raptor persecution debate forward. What I would say to you is that if you do have an issue which you would like to discuss in, er, er, in an appropriate forum, rather than having a, er, er, a rant shall I say for a better word in, er, other media, here is a foum which you could bring this to through your representative in order to get a good full informed debate amongst all the organisations that need to be consulted in it. So that’s what I’d urge you to do if you do have any issues and you want to bring forward then please do not hesitate to contact them through your, through your representative.” [We think this rebuke was aimed at the Scottish Gamekeepers Association who recently published an article that suggested raptor workers could be laundering eggs and chicks on the black market – see here for previous blog on that].

RSPB criticised over link to Hopetoun Estate for Scottish Bird Fair

An article in today’s Scotsman has criticised the RSPB’s decision to hold the first-ever Scottish Bird Fair at Hopetoun House near Edinburgh in May.

The event, to celebrate Scottish birdlife and expected to attract 5,000 visitors, is to be held at the stately home of the Earl of Hopetoun, whose family also reportedly own Leadhills Estate (also known as Hopetoun Estate) in South Lanarkshire. Leadhills is a well-known grouse moor that has been at the centre of numerous police investigations over the years for allegations of raptor persecution. Many of these investigations did not result in a subsequent prosecution, but several did. The most recent one was the conviction of a 20-year old gamekeeper (in November 2010) who was found guilty of laying a rabbit bait laced with the banned pesticide Carbofuran.

The RSPB has defended its decision to link with Hopetoun:

“We understand that there is a clear separation between land managed in hand by Hopetoun Estate in West Lothian, and the Leadhills Estate, which is let on a long lease to American tenants. It is the American sporting tenants on Leadhills Estate, through a UK sporting agent, who employ and manage the land and the employees at this site, and who are therefore ultimately responsible with ensuring that birds of prey are protected on this land. We accept that Hopetoun Estate do not condone any illegal practices on their land.”

Hang on a minute. Doesn’t ‘ultimate responsibility’ lie with the landowner? Isn’t that the message from the new law on vicarious liability? Apparently not!

The Scotsman reports that attempts to contact the Earl of Hopetoun were unsuccessful. However, an article on the Deadline News website has a statement that has reportedly come from the Earl’s spokesman:

“The Earl of Hopetoun’s position on wildlife crime is unequivocal. He has constantly condemned any such activity. More importantly, Hopetoun Estate has no role whatsoever in the management of Leadhills Estate. Leadhills Estate is run on a sporting lease completely separately and there is no connection between Hopetoun Estate and the sporting management of Leadhills“.

Surely that lease would contain a clause that says if any unlawful activity is shown to have taken place then the lease becomes null and void and the tenants can be removed? Apparently not!

Full article in The Scotsman here

Article on Deadline News website here

RSPB’s Scottish Birdfair website here

“Gamekeepers are a force for good in fighting wildlife crime”, say gamekeepers

See here and here!

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha …

More on Aswanley Estate gamekeeper – how the finer details matter

Last month we blogged about the failed appeal of convicted Aswanley Estate gamekeeper Craig Barrie (see here). In October 2011, Barrie had been fined £520 at Aberdeen Sheriff Court for the illegal possession and control of a live wild bird (a pigeon) that had been discovered inside a cage trap on this Aberdeenshire estate.

More detail has now emerged about this case, reported in the latest edition (#66) of the RSPB’s Investigations Newsletter Legal Eagle. The article describes the background to the investigation, including how an RSPB Investigations officer had discovered the pigeon inside the trap in September 2010. Crucially, the trap doors were not ‘set’. The RSPB Investigator called out Grampian police, who came to investigate the trap, accompanied by Barrie. The article says: “They found the trap complete with captive pigeon and Craig Barrie admitted that he was responsible for operation of the trap“.

Interestingly, the article says that although Barrie was convicted for possession and control of a live wild bird (contrary to the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981), “a plea of not guilty to illegally using a cage trap was accepted“.

So here is a gamekeeper who has reportedly admitted that he was responsible for the operation of the trap, and has been convicted of being in control of the pigeon that was found inside the trap, and yet it was accepted that he was not guilty of illegally using a cage trap! Without knowing the complexities of the legal argument put forward, it may be safe to assume that this plea was accepted because even though there was a pigeon in the ‘lure/bait’ compartment of the trap, and Barrie was responsible for the pigeon being in there, the trap wasn’t actually ‘set’ at the time it was discovered, so it could be argued that the trap wasn’t ‘being used’ in the strictest sense of the word. Perhaps it was argued that because the live pigeon was inside the trap, it was being used just as a sort of make-shift aviary, not as a trap! The devil’s in the detail, as they say.

Legal Eagle #66 has yet to be published (we were given a sneak preview) but when it is published you’ll be able to find it on this page here.

Eyes wide shut

It’s often said that the number of reported raptor persecution incidents in Scotland represents just the ‘tip of the iceberg’, which means that many more incidents probably remain undetected and thus unreported (see here for an earlier blog post about this). This shouldn’t come as a surprise to any of our regular readers, who understand that the combination of remote locations, increasingly-aware gamekeepers and some less-than-interested police forces can often result in an inaccurate (under)-estimation of the number of persecution incidents taking place each year.

With the imminent publication of the Scottish government’s 2011 Raptor Poisoning Map, due out any day now if they follow the pattern of previous years, we’ll soon hear claims from the game-shooting lobby that poisoning figures have dropped. We’ll also hear from the conservationists that the officially reported figures may have dropped but that the real extent of persecution remains unreported. The poisoning maps are a good example of this, because apparently they only show the areas where poisoned birds have been detected. What they don’t show, we’re told, is the areas where poisoned baits have been discovered. If that’s true, why do you think poisoned baits are not mapped and reported?

The Raptor Poisoning Maps also don’t show the extent of other types of illegal raptor persecution, such as shooting, trapping, nest disturbance, egg-smashing, chick killing etc. Nor do they show the last known locations of satellite-tracked raptors that have mysteriously ‘disappeared’ into thin air. Perhaps it’s time that the Scottish Government started to publish other maps to depict the extent of these various other incidents. Why don’t they do this already?

Inevitably, many potentially illegal incidents will slip through the net. We’ve been told of one such incident that happened very recently on a shooting estate in Scotland. We’ve been asked not to identify the estate or the gamekeeper for operational reasons.

So, a member of the public (let’s call him John) goes for a walk on this estate and sees what he thinks is a buzzard, in some distress, flapping around with a Fenn (spring) trap dangling from one of its legs. John is fairly clued up and immediately calls the police to report it. It’s a Sunday afternoon, so the Police Wildlife Crime Officer isn’t available (?!). Instead, an ‘ordinary’ police officer is sent to investigate. Mr Police Officer heads onto the estate to look for the distressed buzzard. He is met en-route by a certain gamekeeper, who asks him what he’s looking for. Mr Police Officer explains, and Mr Gamekeeper tells him that, by pure coincidence, he is also looking for a missing Fenn trap that has disappeared from a site where he had set it (legally), inside a tunnel to prevent non-target species from getting caught. His explanation for what had probably happened went something like, ‘Oh, the buzzard must have got inside the tunnel and then got caught in the jaws of the trap and flew off with the trap still attached’. Mr Police Officer apparently believed this explanation and off they went together to find the buzzard. They located it, and Mr Police Officer apparently asked Mr Gamekeeper what to do, and Mr Gamekeeper said the buzzard wouldn’t survive and it would be best if he killed it and disposed of the body, which he duly did. No body, no trap, no evidence, end of story.

The following day, two people visited the area where the buzzard had been found. Mr Gamekeeper appeared, challenged them, apparently told them to ‘get ‘arf my land’ (although his language was reportedly more colourful than that) and then told them ‘come back and collect your car tomorrow’, before dashing off down the road to block the exit with a tractor and trailer, preventing the visitors from leaving. The police were called, and eventually Mr Gamekeeper was instructed to remove his tractor.

The incident in question may or may not have been a case of persecution. Mr Police Officer clearly thought is was just an accident, which of course it could have been. Had he been aware of this estate’s history though, he might have viewed the incident differently. The estate in question has a well-documented track record of alleged raptor persecution (although none of the incidents have ever resulted in a prosecution). The incidents include the reported discovery of at least three poisoned raptors, and multiple nesting failures of breeding hen harriers in suspicious circumstances. In addition, at least two gamekeepers on the estate have a reputation for what might be generously called ‘obnoxious behaviour’ towards members of the public, dating back over a number of years, including claims of alleged assault (prosecution failed) and the deliberate blocking-in of vehicles to inconvenience visitors (presumably to discourage them from further visits). The police would be well aware of this history. Whether Mr Police Officer knew is not known, but hopefully he has now passed on the details of this latest incident to the Police Wildlife Crime Officer. If nothing else, the WCO could pay Mr Gamekeeper a visit to make sure his Fenn traps are being set legally (ie. covered).

We’re told that this estate is one of the 250+ that have signed up for the new Wildlife Estates Initiative. Unfortunately this cannot be verifed yet as the Initiative doesn’t seem to be interested in transparency at this stage of its development, even though one of its stated aims is ‘to introduce an objective and transparent system that demonstrates how wildlife management undertaken by Scottish landowners, in line with the principles of biodiversity conservation, can deliver multiple benefits for society and rural communities’. We’re all looking forward to the time when the Initiative is opened up to public scrutiny.

Scottish gamekeeper jailed for poison scare

Ok, ok, so the headline is misleading but we couldn’t resist! What, you really thought that a gamekeeper had been sent to jail for a wildlife poisoning offence? Don’t be daft, this is Scotland after all!

This is the story of Scottish gamekeeper Graeme Thompson, who sparked a major scare by [falsely] claiming he’d swallowed the banned poison Cyanide, along with some razor blades, in a bid to commit suicide “in a blaze of glory” (see here for earlier blog about this).

Thompson, of Primrose Crescent, Perth, was yesterday sentenced to 25 months in jail (see report in Daily Record here).

Amazing that a gamekeeper who had falsely claimed to have a banned poison can receive a two-year & one month jail sentence, whereas a gamekeeper who has actually been convicted of using a banned poison to kill protected species has never yet been given a prison sentence! Funny old world, isn’t it?

Strathtay gamekeeper charged with firearms & explosives offences

The trial of a Strathtay gamekeeper will take place in Perth in May 2012, where he will face charges of alleged firearms and explosives offences.

The charges, under both the Firearms Act and the Control of Explosives Regulations, relate to allegations of him keeping gunpowder in an unsafe manner in his home. He is accused of having a canister of the explosive without the proper certification, and of storing the gunpowder incorrectly (such that unauthorized persons could gain access to it). He is further charged with having 11 rounds of unsecured .243 ammunition. He has denied all the charges and a trial date was set during a hearing last Thursday (23 Feb 2012).

“There does not seem to have been a welfare offence”, says SLE about crow video

The representative body of Scottish landowners, ‘Scottish Land and Estates’ (SLE), has made a statement on its website about the crow-beating incident recorded on video earlier this month (see here, here and here for background info).

SLE writes: “…and despite the impression given by the OneKind film there does not seem to have been a welfare offence…” (link to SLE statement here).

Maybe the SLE people watched a different video to the rest of us, or maybe they think the method of killing was acceptable? Their view is certainly not shared by the 1,993 signatories to the OneKind open letter to the Scottish Environment Minister (see here), and judging by the comments made by the general public on the OneKind website, a lot of people are understandably angry about what they saw in that video (see here to view the comments).

SLE goes on to warn its members about the potential for criminal damage being done to legal traps, cages and snares, and is encouraging them to report any suspicious activity to the police.

Blog readers are encouraged not to take the law into their own hands, but instead, report any suspicious-looking devices or suspected animal welfare incidents to the police and to the SSPCA. (We recomend reporting to both the police and the SSPCA so that the SSPCA can follow-up if the police fail to investigate). There is an excellent guide to help identify a legal trap from an illegal trap on the OneKind website, and we encourage everyone to take a look. The guide can be found here.

Whether you share the SLE’s view or not, a legal decision about whether the gamekeeper’s actions amounted to a welfare offence, or not, will never be known, as the Procurator Fiscal deemed the video inadmissable evidence, and this decision was later supported by the Lord Advocate. Although a private commentator on this blog has suggested that it was not the Fiscal’s role to deem the evidence inadmissable; he thinks that only a Sheriff has the authority to rule on such an issue. If there are any legal experts reading this (and we know there are a few of you!!) we’d be happy to hear your opinion.

Meanwhile, we’ll sit and wait for the Scottish Environment Minister’s response to the questions raised about wildlife crime reporting in Scotland.

SGA says that raptor workers could be laundering eggs & chicks

The Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association is clearly on the ropes as the mounting body of evidence showing criminal gamekeeper activity gains more and more public attention. One of the SGA’s regular spokesmen, the perenially entertaining Bert Burnett, has now suggested that raptor fieldworkers could be taking raptor eggs and chicks from nests, to launder them on the black market! It’s a bit like saying Greenpeace activists could be harpooning whales to sell to the Japanese, or that the RSPCA could be collecting stray dogs to sell the meat and skins to the Chinese. All possible, of course, but all as improbable as Bert becoming Head of MENSA.

In his latest message to the SGA membership, he also suggests that if licenced raptor workers don’t give prior notice to the gamekeeper of their intended visit, they are not following ‘good practice’. This is, of course, totally incorrect, as all licensed raptor fieldworkers in Scotland already know. The ‘good practice guide’ used by Scotland’s raptor workers (which incidentally is endorsed by SNH) does not say that raptor fieldworkers need to provide advance warning of their intention to visit any raptor site.  Indeed, under the Land Reform Act (Scotland) 2003, volunteer raptor surveyors have a statutory right of access, just as any other member of the public. The difference between a raptor fieldworker and any other member of the public is that the raptor worker will have a Schedule 1 Disturbance Licence, issued annually by SNH, permitting them to visit the nests of certain protected species. Possession of this licence indicates that the raptor fieldworker is suitably competent in minimising the disturbance effect of his/her visit on the raptor’s breeding attempt.

There’s a very good reason why many raptor fieldworkers don’t give prior notice of their intended visit, and it doesn’t take a genius to work out what that might be! Why do you think gamekeepers are demanding that they be given prior warning of a visit? Could it be so they can rush out and remove poisoned baits, dead birds, illegal traps? Bert suggests that the prior notice is to ‘minimise disturbance’ to the gamekeeper’s daily routine, such as ‘fox control’. What utter tosh! Other members of the public, such as hill walkers, cyclists, dog walkers etc, are not required to provide prior notice. Why should it be different for raptor fieldworkers? Could it be because raptor fieldworkers are more likely to be able to spot criminal activity, than say, a casual hill walker?

Bert goes on to urge his members to report anybody seen at a nest site to the police. This is actually a great piece of advice, because it will save the raptor fieldworker the trouble of making the call when he/she finds the poisoned bait, or dead raptor, or trampled chicks, or smashed eggs, or illegal trap during their site visit. The interesting part will be whether the police actually turn up to investigate!

Bert also talks about how raptor workers are licenced (the SNH-issued Disturbance Licence mentioned above) and how the system is ‘based on trust’ with ‘no built in accountability’. That’s also incorrect (where does he get his ‘facts’?). However, the interesting part in his article is where he calls for equality in terms of accountability for raptor fieldworkers and gamekeepers. We couldn’t agree more, Bert! The sooner that a licensing system for individual gamekeepers is introduced, the better!

Bert’s article on the SGA website here