Tag: gamekeeper

Convicted gamekeeper Glenn Brown was a member of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation

Well finally, the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation has responded to one of the many emails we know were sent to them asking whether convicted gamekeeper Glenn Brown was one of their members (see here).

Here is the reply sent to one of our readers today:

From Ann Robinson-Ruddock (NGO) – “Thank you for your enquiry. I can confirm that Mr Brown was a member of the NGO but that following his convictions he has resigned“.

Fascinating. I guess we now know why the NGO has been reluctant to make a public statement on its website since Brown’s conviction in June 2011. Although to be fair, perhaps they’ve waited seven months to see whether his appeal, based on the assertion that he’d been ‘framed’ by the RSPB, was successful. We found out a week ago that his appeal  had failed, some might say spectacularly. Yet still the NGO has failed to make a public statement.

Wouldn’t you expect an organisation, that not only promotes itself as a member of the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime, but states on its website that “Our organisation has a strict disciplinary code  and does not tolerate those who bring the gamekeeping profession into disrepute“, to make a big song and dance about publicly condemning Brown’s criminal activities, and making sure that everyone knew he’d been expelled from the organisation? What we get instead is a delayed private response, that says Brown has resigned, and no mention of condemnation or expulsion.

Is there any wonder that conservationists are so cynical when it comes to trusting the sincerity of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation? At least when twice-convicted gamekeeper David Whitefield was outed as being a member of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association in December 2011, the SGA had the sense to immediately and publicly admit that he was a member, outrightly condemn his criminal activities and kick him out of the club (although the phrase they used was ‘suspended’ rather than ‘expelled for good’ – see here). UPDATE: the SGA has now reportedly given Whitefield “a life ban” (see here).

Come on National Gameepers’ Organisation – when the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association is making you look bad you know your public credibility rating is probably at rock bottom!

Thank you to the contributor who sent us the NGO email and thanks to everyone who contacted the NGO and pressurised them for an answer.

Is he, or isn’t he?

Last Tuesday (24 Jan), Derbyshire gamekeeper Glenn Brown lost his appeal against his conviction for seven offences under the Wildlife & Countryside and Animal Welfare Acts (see here).

On 25 January 2012, we asked whether Glenn Brown was a member (or now an ex-member) of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation (NGO), and encouraged readers to contact the NGO and ask for themselves. I don’t know about you, but the NGO has so far ignored the email we sent to them about it.

Interestingly, the NGO was very quick to post a statement on its website recently about the conviction of a Norfolk head keeper and his apprentice for animal cruelty offences (see here). The NGO stated that neither of the offenders were members of the NGO, and this statement was posted the day after the two were sentenced (sentenced on 11 Jan, NGO web statement posted 12 Jan 2012). UPDATE 8 FEB 2012: the NGO has now removed the statement on its website about the Norfolk head keeper and his apprentice.

So, why the silence over Glenn Brown? Was he a member of the NGO or not? It’s a simple enough question, isn’t it?

If anyone else wants to ask the NGO, you can contact them at: info@nationalgamekeepers.org.uk

‘Unscrupulous liars’ in the Glenn Brown gamekeeper trial

Following the report that convicted gamekeeper Glenn Brown lost his appeal yesterday (see here), one of the RSPB investigators has blogged about his experience, and that of his colleagues, in the appeal process.

Mark Thomas discusses how he and three other RSPB investigation colleagues (Guy Shorrock, James Leonard and John McMahon) were repeatedly accused of being ‘unscrupulous liars’ by Glenn Brown’s defence team. Not for the first time (see here), the RSPB has been publicly accused of ‘planting evidence’ in order to gain a successful prosecution against a gamekeeper accused of raptor persecution. Also not for the first time, this ridiculous accusation has been found to be completely fabricated. I think we can probably make up our own minds as to the identity of the ‘unscrupulous liars’ based on all the evidence available in the public domain.

Mark Thomas goes on to suggest that the reason for the repeated attacks on the credibility and integrity of RSPB investigators is “…because RSPB Investigations working with the Police and the Crown Prosecution Service is the only dedicated team able to pull off these complex gamekeeper- related investigations and convictions, making us an obvious target“. Well, that’s almost true – in Scotland we also have the expertise of the SSPCA to rely upon – but nevertheless, Mark’s conclusion about why the RSPB is an obvious target is, well, obvious and accurate (see link in above paragraph for multiple examples of unfounded hostility from the game-shooting industry towards the RSPB).

Also included in Mark’s blog is a fascinating PDF that gives the full judgement notes from the judge at Brown’s original trial in June 2011. This really is well worth a read, and full credit to the RSPB for allowing this document to be published.

Mark Thomas (RSPB Investigations blog) here

Full judgement notes from Glenn Brown’s original trial: Glenn Brown full judgement notes June 2011

Convicted gamekeeper Glenn Brown loses his appeal

The RSPB reports that Derbyshire gamekeeper Glenn Brown has lost his lengthy appeal against his conviction for seven offences relating to the illegal use  of a baited trap to take birds of prey, the intentional taking of a sparrowhawk, and numerous animal welfare offences.

Brown was convicted in June 2011 for the offences that took place on the National Trust’s Howden Moor in Derbyshire. Despite the penalties available, he was only given 100 hours of community service and ordered to pay £10,000 costs (see here, here, here and here for background).

According to the RSPB press release, Brown’s appeal, which began on 3 January 2012 at Derby Crown Court, included ‘a blistering attack against the integrity of the RSPB, claiming evidence had been planted to incriminate Brown’. The appeal was dismissed on 24 January 2012 by Judge Watson, who commented on the credibility of the RSPB witnesses. Brown was ordered to pay a further £7,000 costs.

It is not known whether Brown was/is a member of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation. You can find out by sending an email to: info@nationalgamekeepers.org.uk

RSPB press release here

Gamekeeper & apprentice avoid jail in cruelty case

Following the blog post on December 9th 2011 (see here), gamekeeper Christopher Carter and his apprentice Luke Byrne have been sentenced for their involvement in an horrendous animal cruelty case on the West Acre Estate in Norfolk.

See here for the sentencing report published in the Daily Mail. Unbelieveable.

The National Gamekeepers’ Organisation has put out a statement to say that neither offender was a member of the NGO. They also say: ‘Independent research has shown that gamekeeping is a force for good in the countryside in terms of conserving wildlife habitat. Moreover, in many remote, rural areas, gamekeepers are in the frontline in the battle against wildlife crime‘. The statement was released by a massive porky pig as it flew over NGO headquarters and can be read here.

Joke sentence for second-time convicted gamekeeper

David Alexander Whitefield, the former gamekeeper at Culter Allers Estate in South Lanarkshire, was today sentenced following his December 2011 conviction for illegally poisoning four buzzards (see here for conviction report).

Before we discuss his latest sentence, let’s remind ourselves of Whitefield’s criminal record: This keeper, who was also a member of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, was convicted in October 2008 for offences relating to the unlawful capture and subsequent welfare of a buzzard. His sentence for that conviction was a £300 fine. He kept his job as the sole gamekeeper and he was not expelled from the SGA. Just six months later, in April 2009, RSPB investigators were alerted to the signs of an illegal poisoning spree on this estate. Obviously, these subsequent poisoning activities, for which Whitefield has now been convicted, demonstrate that the £300 fine had zero effect as a deterrent (no great surprise really).

So then you might expect today’s sentence to reflect not only the seriousness of the crime of poisoning wildlife (and potentially any human and/or domestic animals that happened to wander through the well-used public walking trails on this estate), but also to acknowledge that Whitefield, already previously convicted for wildlife crime there, had shown a complete disregard for wildlife legislation.

You might reasonably expect that the sheriff in this case, Nicola Stewart, might utilise her full sentencing powers and go for the most serious sentence available for this type of crime, which includes a custodial sentence and/or a financial penalty for each poisoned bird. That would see Whitefield put away for a while and would send out a very clear message that this type of crime will no longer be tolerated in this country, just as the Scottish Government has claimed over and over again in recent years.

So why then, was Whitefield handed down a 100 hour community service order as his ‘punishment’?

According to an RSPB press release, Sheriff Stewart is reported to have said the punishment was a direct alternative to a custodial sentence and that poisoning is a serious offence. Why was he given a direct alternative to a custodial sentence and where, in his 100 hour community service order, is there any indication that illegal poisoning is considered a serious offence?

This is a joke sentence, to add to all the other joke sentences that have been handed out to the few criminals that are actually prosecuted for these crimes. As we keep seeing, over and over again, these punishments are not providing the required deterrent so surely it’s now time to introduce mandatory sentences for these offences, and that includes custodial sentences. These are already available to the judiciary – so far, for whatever reason, not one custodial sentence has been given to a convicted raptor poisoner. We need to be asking why that is, and we need to keep asking.

Well done to the SSPCA for some serious doggedness with this case – it’s been a long time in the works and looked at one point to be in danger of failing on a legal technicality. Perseverance paid off, and despite the pathetic sentence, those involved with the groundwork deserve much credit.

BBC news article here

RSPB Scotland press release on Birdguides Blog here

Repeat after me: there are too many raptors

I looked for Kim Jong-il’s name listed on the editorial board of Modern Gamekeeping and was surprised not to find it nestled between the names of Peter Carr and James Marchington. I thought he might have been a guest editor in the final weeks before his death. It seems a reasonable explanation for what looks to be obviously editorial-led comments from their four guest gamekeepers in the January issue.

Each month, Modern Gamekeeping invites guest keepers from across Britain to comment about what has kept them busy during the previous month. In the latest issue, keepers from Northamptonshire, Gloucestershire and North Yorkshire all discuss suspiciously similar topics – Is it a coincidence that three of the four keepers mention ‘fox-dumping’ in their articles (a subject prominently covered on the front page of this month’s Modern Gamekeeping), even though all of them admit it’s not a current problem for them? As it seems to have absolutely nothing to do with what has kept them busy during December, why would three of the four keepers mention it at all, unless they’d been ‘influenced’ by the editorial team?

Predictably, all four of the keepers also write about what they perceive to be ‘the raptor problem’. Is this also a coincidence, or have they taken direction from the editorial staff, given that the magazine’s January editorial is all about how raptors need to be [legally] culled (see here)?

Here’s what the keepers had to say about ‘the raptor problem’:

Keeper on Ashby St Ledgers shoot: “The vermin haven’t really been a problem as we stay on top of them, but the buzzards and sparrowhawks are getting out of hand, they’re everywhere, and are a real worry“.

Keeper on Ozleworth Park: “We have a lot of buzzards that give us some problems early on in the season when birds go to pen. They are also sometimes a bother when we want to move pheasants across the valley when they show themselves and the birds flush the wrong way. Thankfully we don’t get goshawks very often, and when we do they seem to move on quickly, which is good as they could be a real problem“.

Keeper on Shortwood Estate: “Sparrowhawks and buzzards are out of control. Eight years ago you were lucky to see a pair of buzzards round here, now it’s a bad day if you don’t see five circling over your woods. There are far too many, and we also had a pair of goshawks this year that have caused me no end of trouble with the partridges“.

Keeper on Spaunton Moor: “The biggest threat to game management has to be increasing numbers of birds of prey. The North York Moors in particular have massive blocks of forestry and unkeepered farmland, and every week we’re seeing more and more of every raptor species. What people forget is that 20 years ago, there wasn’t a buzzard, red kite or goshawk up here. Now there are plenty of all of them, and they’ve got to eat something. So the biggest threat, I think, is the increasing number of birds of prey and not being able to address that increase“.

Perhaps I’m being unfair. Perhaps these keepers have not been indoctrinated at all and they all genuinely believe that raptors in their areas are ‘out of control’. Although if that’s the case, their claims are difficult to understand given that they also all wrote about how well their seasons have gone this year!! So, either keepers have been illegally killing raptors to get the fantastic bags that have been reported this year, or, raptors don’t actually have such a high impact on bags as the shooting industry would have us believe. If we believe certain organisations, it’s ‘only a few rogues’ that illegally kill raptors, so logically then, the latter explanation must be accurate. Therefore, there’s no need for licences to be issued to legally cull raptors. Sorted.

Kim Jong-il is dead but the art of propaganda lives on

North Korean despot Kim Jong-il may be dead but the art of propaganda is alive and kicking here in the UK. A fine example of this is displayed in the latest [January 2012] edition of Modern Gamekeeping, the monthly rag for UK gamekeepers, where there are more calls for the introduction of licences to cull raptors.

It begins in the editorial at the front. Peter Carr dedicates a whole page to the issue of raptor persecution, starting off with condemnation of illegal raptor poisoning [good], but quickly moving on to ‘justify’ the need for legal raptor culling [not so good]. Part of this ‘justification’ includes the following statement:

“Buzzards, sparrowhawks, goshawks, hen harriers, and tawny owls are the raptor species that cause us the most problems, though the little owl’s destructive power should not be discounted. All are doing well in most areas of the UK…“

Oh dear. But when did facts ever get in the way of 100 year-old anti-raptor propaganda? And here is evidence, should any more be needed, that gamekeepers will not stop at licensed buzzard killing. Sparrowhawks, goshawks, tawny owls and little owls are all apparent targets, and hen harriers too, if they can find any left to kill.

Carr goes on to rally the troops, calling for more strenuous lobbying and “the need for a sensible balance in our countryside“. Presumably that ‘sensible balance’ includes the continued annual release of 40+ million non-native gamebirds into our countryside  and the (mis)management of our uplands to produce artificially-high densities of red grouse, all to the detriment of any native predators that share the habitat?

His editorial ends with this: “Raptor control licences will come, but we must hasten the process with valid argument and an impeccable record of keeping our own house in order“. If these two premises are the ones that will dictate whether raptor culling licences are issued, then conservationists need not fear that they’ll be issued any time soon.

The propaganda continues later in the rag….more on this in the next post…

‘Bumper’ grouse season proves raptors aren’t having a ‘significant impact’

The 2011 grouse season closed on Saturday. According to an article in the Shooting Times, it’s been a “bumper season“, and, “many moor owners, keepers and shooters around the UK will be reflecting on one of their best years in decades” (see here for article).

In another review, this time just of the Scottish grouse season, Robert Rattray, head of CKD Galbraith’s Sporting Letting Department, comments on the performance of some well-known grouse moors (including Glenogil, Millden and Invercauld) and he writes: “The 2011 grouse season will be looked upon as one of the best in recent living memory, and in many instances a distinct improvement on the 2010 season, in itself regarded as one of the best seasons for a decade or more” (see here for his report).

All very interesting. So much for the supposed ‘significant impact’ of raptors on gamebirds, repeatedly trotted out by the gamekeeper and landowner associations in their quest to legalise persecution. If, as they claim, they are not already killing everything with a hooky beak that dares to even look at their grouse moor, then it seems to me that they’re managing to [legally] kill a record number of red grouse without having to go after the raptors. So what’s the problem?

Of course, there are some who’ll read this blog and will have a different perspective – that is, the 2011 grouse season was a ‘bumper’ one precisely because anything with a hooky beak in the vicinity of the grouse moors had already been killed off.

Environment Minister ‘answers’ question about the lost Langholm hen harriers

Following yesterday’s report that Elaine Murray MSP had asked the Scottish Executive for information about the young hen harriers from the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project (see here), Environment Minister Stewart Stevenson has provided a response:

S4W-04336 Elaine Murray: To ask the Scottish Executive what information it has regarding the number of hen harriers that have been satellite tagged as part of the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project and what is known about the whereabouts of those birds.

Stewart Stevenson: In 2010, three hen harriers were satellite tagged as part of the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project. All three have now stopped transmitting. One tag was recovered at Langholm, with no trace of the bird. The other two birds were tracked through southern Scotland, south west England and France and Spain. No tags or birds have been found.

In 2011, three birds were satellite tagged and all have now stopped transmitting. Transmissions were last received from south of Carlisle, in the Moorfoot Hills and France. No tags or birds have been found and there are no indications of the cause of the lost signals.

The life expectancy of the satellite tags used is between a few months to around three years. While live, the tags provide valuable information on hen harrier range and dispersal.

(Link to parliamentary questions and answers here)

It’s a shame the Environment Minister didn’t elaborate further, although he was probably just reciting the information he’d been given, possibly from government advisors at SNH or maybe from Natural England, who are responsible for the satellite tag data from Langholm. Could the lack of transparency be because two of the locations (in the Moorfoot Hills and in the Northern Pennines to the south east of Carlisle) from where the last known signals were transmitted, just happen to be grouse moors? And not just any old grouse moors. One grouse moor with a long history of alleged raptor persecution (dead raptors and poisoned bait found on different occasions but no convictions) and one grouse moor with a head keeper and under keeper convicted of raptor persecution (pole trapping and inproper storage and use of a pesticide). One of these estates has already been named on the Raptor Politics website (see here and here).

Is it just an unfortunate coincidence that the signals from these two young hen harriers failed after they were tracked to these two moors? It could well be. But it’s very hard to be optimistic when we hear that the hen harrier in England is just four precious nests away from extinction (see here).

Perhaps one of these days the Langholm Project officials will deem us all worthy of knowing all the facts about this publicly-funded project, which would allow us all to draw our own conclusions instead of being spoon-fed a clearly sterilised version of events.

Perhaps you don’t want to wait for something that might never happen though. In which case, you can email the Natural England spokesperson for the Langholm Project (press officer Emma Lusby) and ask her yourself: emma.lusby@naturalengland.org.uk