Tag: gamekeeper

Tagged harrier from Langholm mysteriously ‘disappears’

Earlier this month, Environment Minister Stewart Stevenson MSP visited the Langholm Moor Demonstration Project in the Borders. The Langholm Project is an expensive, ten-year project aimed at demonstrating that hen harriers can co-exist with driven grouse shooting. The project is run as a partnership between SNH, Buccleuch Estates, RSPB, GWCT and Natural England. As part of the project, young hen harriers are being fitted with satellite tags to monitor their dispersal movements away from the moor.

The Environment Minister’s visit to Langholm was well publicised with an SNH press release (see here). In this press release, the Minister is quoted as saying: “…it was fascinating to learn that harriers that have been tagged at Langholm are being satellite tracked as far afield as France and Spain”.

Yes, that is fascinating, but of even greater interest is what has happened to the harriers that stayed behind in the UK?

According to the most recent diary entry on the project’s website (October 2011 – see here) written by the Langholm Project’s head gamekeeper, Simon Lester, one of this year’s young harriers has ‘disappeared’ –

“There is good and bad news as far as our satellite-tagged hen harriers are concerned. The ever-intrepid McPedro is certainly heading to France, across the channel from Devon. The sad news is that the hen that hatched in the nest just behind our house — and that I fed for some 60 days — has disappeared in the Moorfoots, having survived well in a relatively small range. The last ‘fix’ (or GPS position transmitted by its satellite tag) was on a shooting estate that co-operated fully when Project staff and the police tried, unsuccessfully, to recover the missing bird. Unfortunately, this bird’s particular satellite tag does not have a ‘ground track’ facility, so it may well have ended up miles away from the last transmitted ‘fix’, as, contrary to popular belief, birds can travel a vast distance in between transmissions. This latest loss is very sad, not just for the Project and our hope that more hen harriers will return to breed here, but is not helpful in our quest to help resolve the on-going raptor/grouse-shooting debate, either“.

Now, this is a fairly one-sided commentary of what might have happened to this young harrier. What Lester failed to mention was that the sporting estate where the harrier’s last known GPS ‘fix’ came from was an estate in the Scottish Borders with a well-documented history of alleged raptor persecution. This particular estate has been the subject of two police raids in the last few years. Illegal pesticides, poisoned baits and poisoned and shot raptors have all reportedly been retrieved from this estate. Apparently, no prosecutions for alleged raptor persecution crime resulted from either raid.

Lester is quite right to point out that just because the last known GPS ‘fix’ of the harrier was on this estate, this doesn’t necessarily mean that the harrier died there. As he says, the harrier could have moved off the estate before the next satellite signal was due, and could have died elsewhere – although if that had happened, why wasn’t there another ‘fix’ from the new location? The transmitter doesn’t die when the bird dies. For all we know though, the bird may not even be dead. It’s possible that the satellite transmitter failed, by coincidence, when the bird was on this estate, and the harrier has since moved away and is alive and well in an unknown location. But there is another plausible explanation too, and one that Lester conveniently chose not to include in his report. That is, this harrier could have been killed illegally on this particular estate, and its body hidden/buried/burnt before the Langholm Project staff arrived to search for it. It’s worth pointing out here that the Langholm Project policy, when searching for missing birds, is to look at the bird’s last known GPS ‘fix’, identify the landowner, and ask for that landowner’s permission before the project staff go searching for the bird, thus giving advance warning of the search.

Why Lester chose not to include this alternative possible explanation in his report about the disappearance of the harrier is not clear. It would seem that the suspicion of foul play had been considered by the project team, given that a wildlife crime police officer accompanied the team to search for the missing bird on this estate. We will wait with interest for the Langholm Project’s formal 2011 annual report to see what information is provided about this particular disappearing harrier, and about all the other tagged harriers from 2010 and 2011. So far, very limited information has been made available about the fate of the six tagged harriers, with the exception of the famed ‘McPedro’, who wisely took off to Spain in his first summer, returned to the UK this spring, and then took off south again this autumn. Given the amount of public funding that is being ploughed into the Langholm Project, a bit more transparency about the fate of some of the other young harriers wouldn’t go amiss.

Langholm Moor Demonstration Project website here

Things to do list #1

Recognising that the criminal persecution of raptors in Scotland shows little sign of ending, the Scottish Parliament voted in March this year to introduce the offence of vicarious liability as part of the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 (see here and here). Basically, this will allow prosecutors to take action against the landowner and/or sporting tenant, and not just an individual gamekeeper, when persecution incidents are detected. Whether this will be effective or not remains to be seen; if the landowner/sporting tenant can demonstrate that he/she knew nothing about the persecution and can show that steps were taken to try and prevent it from happening on their estate, then they will have a viable defence. Once the WANE Act is commenced in full, it won’t be long before the effectiveness of vicarious liability will be tested. At least we’ve got something to work with and by voting to accept this new legislation, the Scottish Parliament has acknowledged that the problem still exists.

Unfortunately, the same opportunity is not available in England. Earlier this year, we reported on the Defra Minister’s response to a request for the introduction of vicarious liability in England. You can read MP Richard Benyon’s response here, where he suggests that vicarious liability is not required and that he applauded gamekeepers for their wonderful work!

Well, now there just may be an opportunity to bypass Richard Benyon’s incredible lack of foresight and have the issue debated in the House of Commons. A new e-petition website has been provided by HM government, whereby ordinary members of the British public can start an e-petition on a topic of their choice (within the bounds of decency!). If after 12 months their e-petition has attracted at least 100,000 signatures, then the issue becomes eligible as a topic for debate in the House of Commons.

Yesterday, a new e-petition was established to introduce the offence of vicarious liability for raptor persecution in England. If you are a UK citizen, you can help support this effort by signing the petition online. Your personal details are not publicised and the whole process takes less than a minute. If you care about the ongoing illegal persecution of raptors in England, here’s your chance to add your voice and it won’t cost you a penny. Please also share this post with your friends, family and colleagues.

Please sign the e-petition here

The mysterious case of the Inverinate Estate gamekeeper’s trial

Way back in March 2011, the case against Inverinate Estate gamekeeper, Andrew Malcolm Slaughter, opened at Inverness Sheriff Court. He was reported to be facing charges under the Wildlife & Countryside Act, the Animal Health & Welfare (Scotland) Act and the Agriculture (Scotland) Act (see here).

Over the next eight months, five different court dates for this trial have been and gone (see here). Today was the 6th court date and we were expecting the case to be concluded one way or another. Well, it was and it wasn’t. Apparently, this case has been ‘deserted pro loco et tempore’. We are told that this means the case is finished as far as this court is concerned, but that the Procurator Fiscal may raise it again in the future. No explanation has been given for this decision.

A satisfactory outcome?

By pure coincidence, Alex Salmond MSP (the current First Minister of Scotland), on a recent trip to Dubai earlier this month, met the son of the man believed (but not confirmed) to be the Inverinate Estate owner (the son happens to be the Deputy ruler of Dubai), “to discuss opportunities to strengthen links between the two nations” (see here). What an amazingly small world.

Poisoning by numbers

Last week the RSPB published its annual UK-wide report on raptor persecution (Birdcrime 2010, see here). We said we’d comment on the report once we’d had a chance to read it. Others chose to comment on the day of its release, or to be more accurate, their commentary was probably written prior to the release and was probably based on the content of the RSPB’s press release, rather than on the actual report’s content (see here).

Birdcrime 2010 held few surprises for many of us. The report carried details of raptor persecution incidents (confirmed, probable and possible) that had been reported throughout 2010, so by not publishing the report until November 2011, many of the items could be considered ‘old news’ (or at least those incidents that had been previously reported in the media – as usual, there were several incidents recorded in this report that were not made public at the time they occurred). That’s not to say the report has no value – it is an immensely important document because it is still the only publication to collate these national statistics in one place. It would just be more useful if it could be published at the beginning of the following year to which the report relates, rather than at the end of the following year, but limited RSPB staff resources may prevent this.

One advantage of publishing the report so late is that information can be provided on the outcome of criminal proceedings for those persecution incidents that actually made it to court. For example, the report provides some previously unpublished information about the trial of gamekeeper Glenn Brown, who was found guilty in June 2011 of operating an illegal trap to take birds of prey (amongst other crimes) on Howden Moor in the Peak District in April and May 2010 (see here, here and here). According to Birdcrime 2010, Judge Caroline Goulbourn “ruled that she viewed the attack on the integrity of the RSPB investigations staff by Bertie Woodcock QC on behalf of Knights Solicitors as an aggravating factor in the case. In addition, she criticised Brown’s employer, Geoff Eyre, who leases Howden Moor from the National Trust, for being evasive and reluctant to answer questions” [Birdcrime 2010, p.17].

Incidentally, there is further detail about this case that has been written in the RSPB’s newsletter, Legal Eagle 65. On page 2 the following has been written: “During the ten day trial, the prosecution relied on expert evidence including Prof Ian Newton, Dr Mick Marquiss, Stewart Scull, Dr Alisdair Wood and Guda van der Burght. The defence case, led by Bertie Woodcock QC, centred on the fact that Brown was not using the trap and the entire investigation was a set up with RSPB officers acting in bad faith throughout”. It’s good to see that Judge Goulbourn ruled against this, although what will happen at Brown’s impending appeal remains to be seen. Legal Eagle 65 reports that this appeal “is expected to take place in 2012”.

In addition to the case studies of earlier persecution incidents, Birdcrime 2010 reports that annual poisoning figures were down from 2009 (128 reported poisoning incidents in 2010, compared to 153 in 2009). It also reports that the 2010 figure is below the average for the last five years (2005-2009 average of 150 incidents). Unsurprisingly, it is this aspect that has been picked up on by the game-shooting lobby (e.g. see here). There has also been much made in the media this year about the ‘low’ poisoning figures for 2011 (e.g. see here) – although the published figures only relate to the first half of 2011; figures from June 2011 onwards are not yet available. So is this a sign of progress, as many of the game-shooting lobby would have us believe, or is it indicative of something else? For example, the lower figures could well be an indication that the gamekeepers have finally seen the light and have decreased their poisoning efforts. On the other hand, it could be an indication that gamekeepers are either (a) getting better at hiding their crimes, (b) switching to other persecution methods such as shooting, which is less likely to be detected, or (c) reporting efforts by the authorities have fallen. At this point I don’t think that either ‘side’ can claim a ‘victory’ in the on-going war of words. It is far too early to tell. For example, if you look at the graph that was published in the RSPB’s earlier report, The Illegal Killing of Birds of Prey in Scotland in 2010 (see here), then this reported decline in poisoning incidents can be seen in much clearer context. The graph I’m referring to appears on page 11 of that report and shows the number of confirmed poisoning incidents in Scotland from 1989-2010. The graph has been recreated for this post – see below (thanks to the contributor who sent it!).

If you look closely at the graph, you will see a great deal of variation between years in the number of confirmed poisoning incidents. Of particular interest are the years 1994 and 1995 – in these two years, confirmed poisoning incidents dropped to a low of 15 from a previous high of 35+. However, if you then look at the following three years, the number of confirmed incidents steadily rose until they reached 35+ again. In 1999, the figure dropped again to 15, and from then until 2010, that figure has steadily risen and fallen, although never reaching the low of 15 again. So what does that tell us? I’m fairly sure that in the years 1994 and 1995, the game shooting lobby would have declared a ‘victory’ as the figures had dropped so much, and would have shouted from the hilltops that they’d changed their ways.  I’m also fairly sure that in the following three years when the figures rose again, the conservationists would have declared a ‘victory’ and pronounced that their claims of widespread persecution had been vindicated. Either way, it is clear that neither ‘side’ can draw conclusions just based on an annual figure; for a trend to be detected, we need to see long-term figures.

But do these figures actually provide the full picture? If you read the recent paper on historical persecution at Atholl Estate (see here), then it’s pretty obvious that the ‘official’ persecution figures are meaningless, in the sense that they don’t tell the whole story. And from a conservation perspective, the figures, whether accurate or not, are not really that important. To steal a line from the recent paper on peregrine persecution on grouse moors (see here), “….it is the population level impact that is important, rather than the number of confirmed persecution cases”. We now have peer-reviewed scientific studies that have shown how persecution on grouse moors is having a population level impact on several vulnerable species (golden eagle, hen harrier, red kite and now peregrine). We have yet to see any peer-reviewed scientific studies that can counter these findings and show that these species are NOT impacted by persecution on grouse moors at a population scale. Why do you think that is, and more to the point, what are our politicians going to do about the published findings, apart from telling us that the Scottish government’s support for grouse shooting “goes beyond words“? (see here). Let’s hope that support doesn’t go beyond action as well.

Convicted gamekeeper back in court part 3

Almost a year ago, back in December 2010, we reported on the case of a previously convicted gamekeeper who was due in court for more alleged wildlife crime offences (see here and here).

His case was delayed several times last December (partly due to the bad weather) and then just before Xmas it was delayed again for a legal technicality.

His case returned to a sheriff’s court today. The case was continued until 1st December. Full details of this case will be provided once criminal proceedings have ended.

The denials have started – gamekeepers say persecution becoming less of an issue

With tedious predictability, one of the gamekeepers’ representative bodies is trying to play down the latest raptor persecution figures. According to an article in today’s Telegraph, the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation says birds of prey are doing well in the UK and persecution is becoming less of an issue.

If you can be arsed to read any more of these ridiculous statements, the article can be found here.

Tip of the iceberg

Anyone who has been reading the ‘official’ annual raptor persecution reports over the last few decades will be familiar with the phrase, “These figures represent the tip of the iceberg”. Conservationists have long held the view that many illegal raptor persecution incidents go unreported, given the remote locations involved and the cultural and social pressures that inhibit certain sectors of the rural community from speaking up about these crimes. Most reports of poisoned, shot, or trapped raptors come from people who have found them by chance, for example hill walkers and dog walkers. The game shooting lobby, in response to the ‘tip of the iceberg’ statement, usually asks, “Where’s the evidence?” The numerous (and ever-increasing) glut of peer-reviewed scientific publications, that show a clear correlation between persecution and upland grouse moors, are usually dismissed as ‘pseudo-science’ by the landowners and gamekeepers, and the conservationists are often accused of conducting some sort of smear campaign against the game shooting industry.

No doubt we will hear all of this, and more, in the coming few days once the RSPB Birdcrime 2010 report has been published later this week. For certain, the report will contain the statement, “These figures represent the tip of the iceberg”, or words to that effect.

So, if the gamekeepers want evidence, here’s some that was unwittingly provided by….er, gamekeepers. It comes in the form of a recently (Sept 2011) published paper in the journal Scottish Birds, which is published by the Scottish Ornithologists’ Club. The paper was written by R.L. McMillan and is entitled, ‘Raptor persecution on a large Perthshire estate: a historical study’. Unfortunately we’re not allowed to publish the whole paper here (you have to be a member of the SOC to get access, or google the author and ask him for a PDF for your personal use) but here is the abstract:

The Atholl Game and Vermin Lists provide an almost continuous record from 1867 until 1988 and in many respects are unique for a large estate in Scotland. Large numbers of raptors and owls were destroyed by gamekeepers during the latter part of the 19th century and into the late 20th century. The implementation of legislation to protect predatory birds appears to have made little difference to persecution levels. Gamekeepers on individual beats seemed able to decide whether they killed predators or not. A few gamekeepers chose not to kill any birds of prey. Some persecution continued well into the late 20th century and a comparison between estate records and incidents recorded by the authorities strongly suggests that a substantial amount of illegal persecution was not recorded.

The paper provides a detailed insight into the extent of raptor persecution on Atholl Estate,  covering the historical period when it was legal to kill raptors (pre-1954), and the current period when it is illegal to kill raptors (1954 onwards). Gamekeepers on the nine beats at Atholl Estate were required to submit annual report cards that recorded the number of game and ‘vermin’ [including raptors!] that was killed on each beat. According to the paper, McMillan writes of Atholl Estate:

“To maintain the estate record of game and vermin killed, the individual shooting beats were required to complete a card by the end of February each year and this contained details from the preceding year. The same printed card had been in use for many years and this included hawks, owls and ravens. Although the estate factor regularly checked the returns on these cards, it was only when a member of staff expressed concern that protected birds were included in the returns, that a new form was introduced for the 1988/89 season which excluded protected species”.

The historical records covering part of the period (1867-1911) when it was legal to kill raptors don’t provide any surprises, showing that 11,428 ‘hawks’ were killed on Atholl Estate, in addition to 3,731 owls. Sadly the records do not distinguish between different species of ‘hawks’ or owls and McMillan has interpreted the term to include every raptor and owl species that would typically occur in the area.

The more recent records, however, are of far more interest. They show the period covering the introduction of the 1954 Protection of Birds Act (making it illegal to kill all raptors except sparrowhawks, which weren’t protected until 1961) and McMillan’s graphs of persecution incidents show that the legislation was ignored on the two beats whose records he analysed. In fact on one beat, McMillan shows that persecution actually increased at the time the Act was implemented.

But the most interesting part of this paper comes in Table 3. It is a comparison of gamekeeper records from just one Atholl Estate beat, with the ‘official’ RSPB data for the whole of Scotland, from the period 1980 – 1988. The RSPB data only include details of raptors that have been killed (so not details of ‘suspected’ incidents). Here’s an overview of McMillan’s findings:

1980/81: Atholl Estate beat = 19 raptors killed; RSPB official data for all of Scotland= 9 raptors killed.

1981/82: AE beat = 21; RSPB all Scotland= 23.

1982/83: AE beat = 36; RSPB all Scotland= 16.

1983/84: AE beat = 36; RSPB all Scotland  = 13.

1984/85: AE beat = 25; RSPB all Scotland= 12.

1985/86: AE beat = 22; RSPB all Scotland= 8.

1986/87: AE beat = 14; RSPB all Scotland= 13.

1987/88: AE beat = 30; RSPB all Scotland  = 15.

So, in each of the years listed, with the exception of 1981/82, the ‘official’ RSPB figures for the WHOLE of Scotland were lower than the number of illegally persecuted raptors on just one shooting beat. Does anyone need any clearer evidence that the ‘official’ statistics of illegal raptor persecution are just the tip of the iceberg?!! Of course, there are plenty of arguments that could be made about the reliability of the gamekeepers’ records – i.e. keepers could have inflated the number to earn a bonus, or alternatively keepers could have reduced the number for fear of providing potentially incriminating evidence. McMillan deals with these and other issues in the paper. And for those who think the persecution stopped when Atholl Estate stopped recording it in the 1988/89 season, McMillan reports that “between 1989 and 1999, a number of incidents were logged by the RSPB on several shooting beats on the Atholl Estates, not all of which were confirmed, but which included shootings of raptors, trapping of birds including golden eagle and the deliberate destruction of broods of hen harrier and peregrines“.

It’s worth bearing in mind that these figures in Table 3 are from just ONE beat on just ONE sporting estate. You don’t need much imagination to guess what these figures would look like if records from every sporting estate in Scotland were included in the analysis. This should provide some perspective when we read the ‘official’ figures in the RSPB Birdcrime 2010 report later this week.

It should be noted that under the current management, Atholl Estate regularly provides a home for breeding golden eagles, peregrines, hen harriers and other raptors.

Full paper citation: McMillan, R.L. (2011). Raptor persecution on a large Perthshire estate: a historical study. Scottish Birds 31(3): 195-205.

Atholl Estate website here

Thank you to the contributor who alerted us to this publication.

North Yorkshire worst place for raptor persecution in UK, says RSPB

A report out today in the Independent on Sunday says that birds of prey are being poisoned or shot in the North York Moors and Yorkshire Dales at a rate unknown in any other region in the UK, according to the latest RSPB figures.

The headline is actually quite a misleading statement. Perhaps what it should say is that reports of raptor persecution are highest in North Yorkshire than any other region. We know only too well that reporting and recording is done very differently between regions, and these differences do not neccessarily reflect what is actually happening on the ground.

The latest figures come from the RSPB’s annual Birdcrime report, Birdcrime 2010, which is due to be published on Thursday, so it’s difficult to assess the findings until the report has been released. However, according to the IoS article, “Almost 10 per cent of the 117 incidents against 11 species last year took place in the county, which has consistently recorded high rates of such crime, according to the RSPB“.

The article continues: “The number of reported incidents in North Yorkshire doubled between 2009 and 2010, from 27 to 54, with 10 confirmed cases of bird of prey persecutions. These include the poisoning of four red kites and three buzzards and the shooting of a goshawk. Two-week old chicks [of what species?] were also found laced with a banned pesticide and left as bait in the Yorkshire Dales.”

An RSPB spokesman lays the blame firmly at the feet of intensive upland grouse moors; a BASC spokesman denied the extent of the problem and said “the gamekeeper is a convenient scapegoat.”

All depressingly familiar. The bottom line is, despite the overwhelming evidence of widespread criminal raptor persecution, it is still not possible to get a meaningful prosecution. Until this happens, we will continue to read these appalling statistics.

More on this once the Birdcrime 2010 report has been published.

Article in the Independent on Sunday here

Got Carbofuran? Get rid of it here, no questions asked.

Earlier this year, a subsidised pesticide and biocide disposal scheme was set up for a three month period (Jan-Mar), so that gamekeepers, farmers, pest controllers etc could safely and cheaply get rid of certain redundant and/or illegal substances. The scheme was organised by the bafflingly-named Project SOE (Security in the Operational Environment) and was supported by government funding, which allowed collection and disposal for the bargain rate of £20 per application.

It was pleasing to see that the scheme was supported by the National Gamekeepers Organisation and also the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, given the on-going and widespread problem of keepers using illegal pesticides, especially  Carbofuran, to poison raptors and other wildlife. Credit to the two organisations for doing this (publicly supporting the disposal scheme, not poisoning raptors, obviously).

According to the Project SOE website, the scheme was so successful that it will now be continued for a further limited period, offering collection and disposal at favourable rates. The scheme could be viewed as a sort of ‘poisons amnesty’, with no questions asked of the participants. This seems too good an opportunity to miss and we hope that landowners and gamekeepers (and their representative organisations) will jump at the chance to advertise this extended scheme and participate in it if they haven’t already done so.

Project SOE website here

Bye, then

In a feature article in the latest edition of Shooting Times, the Chairman of the National Gamekeepers Organisation, Lindsay Waddell, laments the sale of Millden Estate in Angus (see our earlier story about the sale here).

He questions the reasons behind the sale, “just as the moor is coming good“. It’s a strange description for an estate where two-year-old golden eagle Alma was found poisoned in 2009 (see here). His theory about why Millden has come on the market goes like this:

“It would appear the answer lies in the recent legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament which holds landowners liable for the actions of their staff [vicarious liability], and that is something, it appears, some will not entertain at any cost. So it’s sell up, and get out. It may well turn out to be a sad day for the inhabitants of many glens if more and more of the modern-day owners decide to take the same course of action“.

Interesting.

Waddell goes on to acknowledge that there are still landowners (he says “a few”, we say ‘too many’) who won’t manage their land without the use of [illegal] poison and says these individuals have to shoulder a lot of the blame for the introduction of vicarious liability. No disagreement there, Lindsay – the criminals within your industry are finally having to face the music after 60 long years of relentless and systematic illegal raptor persecution.

He also comments that the new legislation (vicarious liability) is ‘open to abuse’. He writes: “It is all very easy for items to be ‘found’ on a piece of land“. By ‘items’, does he mean poisoned birds and poisoned baits, and enormous caches of illegal poison? Much like what was found on Skibo Estate in 2010? The ‘items’ that Dean Barr, sporting manager at Skibo Estate, claimed in the press had been planted by the RSPB (see here)? Obviously his press statement was made before he was found guilty of possessing 10.5 kg of Carbofuran – the UK’s biggest haul of this banned pesticide to date (see here).

Waddell continues by suggesting that Millden may be the first of many Scottish sporting estates to be sold. Let’s hope so. I can think of more than just ‘a few’ whose closure is long overdue.

Shooting Times article here