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

Inverinate Estate gamekeeper’s trial – more delay

The case against gamekeeper Andrew Malcolm Slaughter, which opened at Inverness Sheriff Court in March 2011, has been delayed once again.

The case opened in mid-March (see here for details) and was continued until 7th April.

On 7th April, it was adjourned until 28th April (see here).

On 28th April the case continued without plea until 19th May (see here).

On 19th May the case was put back until 12th October (see here).

The case has now been postponed until 17th November, eight months after the trial first started.

More detail emerges about ‘missing’ dead sea eagle on GWCT chief’s estate

Cast your minds back to February and you may recall the story about the white-tailed eagle that was reportedly found dead in the snow by a member of the public on Logie Estate, Moray in December 2010. The Scotsman newspaper said at the time that when the police arrived ‘the next morning’ to collect the body, it had ‘disappeared’. The paper reported that the estate owner, Mr Alasdair Laing (Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust’s Scottish Committee Chairman) and his gamekeepers were questioned by the police. The police said they couldn’t do anything without the body. Mr Laing wrote to the Scotsman and said it was mis-leading for them to report that he and his keepers had been ‘questioned’ and for them to say that the sea eagle had ‘disappeared’: “Use of words such as ‘questioned’ and ‘disappeared’ imply a level of suspicion of guilt  which is unwarranted by the circumstances“, he wrote (See here for the story).

Nothing more was heard about this incident and it seemed the investigation was destined to go the same way as every other investigation there has ever been into the ‘mysterious’ deaths of eagles in Scotland – i.e. nowhere. Fast forward seven months to September 2011 and the publication of the RSPB’s report: ‘The Illegal Killing of Birds of Prey in Scotland in 2010‘ (see here). Page 16 of this excellent report shows a photograph of a dead eagle accompanied by the following text:

On 11 December 2010, a member of the public found and photographed the carcass of a white-tailed eagle, lying under a tree on a remote moorland near Lochindorb in Nairnshire. The police were notified, but when they attended the scene a few days later to recover the carcass for a post-mortem, it had disappeared. There were no tracks of scavengers in the surrounding snow, and there was not a feather remaining from the well-decomposed carcass. In fact, the only new tracks that were in the area were those of a quad bike, leading to near the finding location, and the footprints of the person who had walked over to the body, removed it, returned to the quad bike, and left the area“.

Hmm. A few things spring to mind here. First of all, when did the police attend the scene? The original article in the Scotsman said it was ‘the next morning’. The RSPB report says it was ‘a few days later’. Which report is accurate?

Secondly, now we’ve been told about the tracks in the snow, the question is, who was driving the quad bike on Logie Estate? The obvious assumption of course is that it was a gamekeeper. But if we believe Mr Laing, and why wouldn’t we, then it must have been someone else. So who else would be able to ride a quad bike, unnoticed, across the estate and back, to retrieve the dead eagle? Perhaps it was a fox. Perhaps he came out one night under the cover of darkness, jumped on the quad bike, drove it across the moorland to where the dead eagle was lying, pulled on a pair of boots and walked on his hind legs across the snow to the dead eagle, leant forward and picked up the dead eagle with his front paws, walked back to the quad bike on his hind legs, grasped the dead eagle between his teeth and drove the quad bike back, left it parked where he had found it, and skulked off into the night with his prized rotting eagle carcass.

A bit far fetched? I’d say no more so than some of the other explanations we’ve been asked to believe in recent months concerning the discovery of dead raptors on sporting estates.

Of course, the young sea eagle could have died from natural causes, although it certainly wasn’t from old age. The problem is, because the carcass was apparently removed before it could be sent for a post-mortem, we’ll never know. I’m sure people will read about the apparent chain of events and make up their own minds about what happened.

RSPB publishes 2010 raptor persecution report

The RSPB has just published its annual report on raptor persecution in Scotland. The report, ‘The Illegal Killing of Birds of Prey in Scotland 2010‘ is the only known published record of all known persecution incidents including poisoning, shooting and trapping, in contrast to the PAW Scotland annual report which only details poisoning incidents. As well as the confirmed incidents of persecution, the report also provides information about ‘probable’ incidents (those where the available evidence points to illegality as by far the most likely explanation but where the proof of an offence is not categorical) and ‘possible’ incidents (where an illegal act is a possible explanation but where another explanation would also fit the known facts).

The report provides details of several confirmed and probable persecution incidents that didn’t make it into the public domain at the time they occurred, including two shot sparrowhawks (Dingwall, Inverness-shire & nr Dolphinton, South Lanarkshire), a goshawk killed in a pole trap (nr Dalwhinnie, Inverness-shire), a shot short-eared owl (Leadhills, South Lanarkshire), 5 separate incidents involving peregrines (Stirlingshire, South Lanarkshire and Dumfries-shire), ‘disappearing’ hen harrier chicks (nr Knockando, Moray), a member of the public witnessing the shooting of a buzzard (nr Leadhills, South Lanarkshire), the discovery of a heavily decomposed buzzard carcass found in a stink pit (nr Dornie, Inverness-shire) and the discovery of a suspected pole-trapping site (nr Dornie, Inverness-shire).

Interestingly, although the report doesn’t go as far as naming estates in most incidents (apart from the reports of successful prosecutions), it does go further than the vague information provided in the annual PAW statistics. For example, in the PAW Scotland ‘Bird of Prey Poisoning Incidents 2006-2010 – Incident Details’ report (that we discussed here in March 2011), there are several cases of buzzard poisoning that were just listed as ‘Tayside’. The RSPB report clarifies this a little bit, and lists the locations as ‘Glenogil’ and ‘nr Kinross’.

This annual report makes for grisly reading, but as the report says, these incidents no longer shock or surprise us. The evidence yet again points to the involvement of people within the game-shooting industry; the latest statistics show that of all those convicted for illegal raptor persecution in Scotland between 2003-2010, 88% were involved with gamekeeping (the rest involved pest controllers, farmers and pigeon racers at 4% each).

The RSPB makes several recommendations in the report that would considerably reduce the difficulty of bringing these criminals to justice. They include recommended action for the police, the crown office & procurator fiscal service, the Scottish government, and representatives from the game-shooting industry. Some of these recommendations have been made before but have apparently remained unheeded.

Well done to the RSPB for publishing this report and for keeping the issue high on the political and public agenda.

The report can be downloaded here

Poisoning whodunnit? Police forensic scientist has no-eyed deer

Pioneering research in Scotland may lead to a new approach in detecting the perpetrators of wildlife crime. A new study has shown that low levels of human DNA can sometimes be retrieved from the carcasses of dead animals – in this case dead deer.

The original idea to look for human DNA on dead animals came from James Govan, a forensic scientist with the Scottish Police Services Authority, who was looking at ways of addressing the problem of bird of prey poisoning. He is reported to have said the following:

It’s a horrendous problem, and nobody quite knows who’s doing it or why. Sometimes farmers are blamed, sometimes gamekeepers are blamed – but I associate with quite a few gamekeepers and most of them detest it, so it’s a mystery.”

Oh dear. Let’s hope his forensic skills are more impressive than his comprehension skills.

The researchers behind the new study (‘Recovery of human DNA profiles from poached deer remains: a feasibility study’) claim that this technique may be useful to identify deer poachers in the UK, as well as endangered species poachers in other parts of the world. They also suggest it has the potential to be used on other evidence collected in wildlife crime investigations such as feathers, eggs, snares or traps. This is encouraging news, although others have cautioned that the technique has yet to be tested on samples that have been exposed to the elements for any length of time, which may or may not degrade the quality and quantity of available DNA.

The study abstract can be viewed here

BBC news story here

Science Daily article here

Remony Estate provides safe haven for golden eagles

Remony Estate in Perthshire has joined a very small group of Scottish sporting estates known to actively support breeding populations of raptors on their grounds. Following in the footsteps of estates such as Coignafearn and Glen Tanar, Remony, near Aberfeldy, has provided a safe haven for a species not often tolerated on a working grouse moor – the golden eagle.

This year a pair of golden eagles was allowed to breed successfully and without disturbance at Remony, resulting in the production of two healthy offspring. One of the youngsters has been collected under licence to join the on-going effort to re-introduce the golden eagle to Ireland.

For the full story, click here.

Congratulations to Remony Estate owner, James Duncan Miller, and his team of gamekeepers, for showing the rest of their industry that raptor conservation and grouse moor management need not be mutually exclusive activities. They deserve to be recognised and acknowledged for their efforts.

Remony Estate website here

No vicarious liability for England

Richard Benyon MP, the DEFRA Minister for the Natural Environment and Fisheries, doesn’t see any need to follow Scotland’s lead of introducing vicarious liability to make landowners legally responsible for incidents of raptor persecution that occur on their estates.

On 30 June 2011, Labour MP Angela Smith (Penistone & Stocksbridge, South Yorkshire) asked the following question: Only two weeks ago, a gamekeeper was convicted for illegally killing birds of prey in my constituency. Is it not time to think about introducing a vicarious liability offence to ensure that landowners and estate managers supervise their gamekeepers more closely and more effectively?

Richard Benyon’s response: There are very good laws in place to punish the illegal killing of any animal. If they are not being effectively enforced, they must be and we will take steps to make sure that happens. However, this is a good opportunity to applaud gamekeepers for the wonderful work they do in providing excellent biodiversity across our countryside.

It was reported in the Telegraph last year that Mr Benyon is a ‘keen grouse-shooter’ (see here).

Perhaps Mr Benyon hasn’t looked at the national poisoning statistics of the last few years. If he had, he couldn’t have failed to notice how many of these confirmed incidents were now listed as ‘closed’ before any enforcement action was taken! (see here for 2008-2011 database).

Perhaps we should all be writing to Mr Benyon, to point him in the direction of these official statistics and to ask him what ‘steps he will take’ to ensure that effective law enforcement is taking place? Here’s his email address: richard@richardbenyon.com