Some good news for birds of prey! DEFRA has endorsed Natural England’s recommendations for a presumption AGAINST the issuing of licences for taking birds of prey from the wild for falconry and aviculture.
A licensing policy review was undertaken by Natural England following the furore in 2020 when NE issued licenses for the removal of young peregrines from the wild for a purported captive-breeding programme.
That news had generated heated arguments both for and against the licences, as reported on Mark Avery’s blog (e.g. see here, here and here). In 2022 NE said that although licences had been issued in 2020, ‘the licenses expired earlier this year with no chicks having been taken‘. It’s not clear why the licences weren’t used.
Young peregrines on a nest ledge. Photo by Ruth Tingay (taken under licence)
In 2022, licences to take birds of prey from the wild were temporarily suspended whilst NE began a fairly comprehensive licensing policy review which included a public consultation with wide stakeholder engagement from the falconry and non-falconry communities. Natural England has published links to various reports resulting from the consultation process, here.
The species most frequently mentioned by those wanting to take birds from the wild for falconry purposes were peregrine (58%), sparrowhawk (58%), merlin (22%) and goshawk (10%). One individual falconer respondent mentioned buzzard and golden eagle. However, many falconer and non-falconer respondents considered the latter two species to be unsuitable for inclusion in a future wild take licensing regime. In the case of golden eagles, it was stated that this was due to their rarity in England. Many falconers also considered merlin to be unsuitable for inclusion due to their rarity.
The consultation process included detailed evidence from the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) about the increase in the legal and illegal trade in peregrines, both for the domestic and international market, and how licensed ‘wild take’ may add to the problem.
Many of you will be familiar with Operation Tantallon, the recent successful multi-agency investigation leading to the subsequent prosecution and conviction of two peregrine launderers in south Scotland who were selling wild Scottish peregrines to wealthy falconers in the Middle East (see here).
The scale of their offending was considerable and I heard at a wildlife crime conference earlier this week that many more cases are currently under investigation as a result of Operation Tantallon.
In October 2023 Natural England’s ‘wild-take’ licensing review came to an end and drew the following conclusions:
Wild take is not integral to the present-day practice of falconry or aviculture in England. Few modern falconry texts define falconry as involving the use of ‘wild’ birds of prey and there are limited historical references to the cultural importance of wild take or of wild-taken birds to British falconers. No clear consensus exists within the falconry community or in the available falconry literature regarding the cultural importance of wild take as a core aspect of falconry practice.
Despite rapid growth in the popularity of falconry in recent decades, the available evidence suggests that there are sufficient birds of the relevant species readily available – via captive populations – to meet current demand. There is no evidence of significant inbreeding risks in these captive populations and captive-bred birds are generally considered to perform to a similar standard as wild birds when used for falconry purposes.
Most non-falconers are opposed to licenced wild take on ethical grounds and have concerns regarding the potential impacts of falconry and wild take on the conservation and welfare of the species affected. Both falconers and non-falconers are supportive of additional measures to ensure that individuals keeping birds of prey have suitable experience in caring for such birds.
Few respondents to the public call for evidence expressed a desire to gain commercially from wild take. However, risks identified relating to the illegal trade in birds of prey nevertheless suggest a need for strict controls on commercial use of such birds alongside improved traceability and other measures to be taken forwards by the responsible agencies. Difficulties in tracing individual birds under current arrangements mean there is a credible risk that the offspring of a wild bird taken under licence could be illegally laundered via commercial breeding operations into the domestic and international trade.
On the basis of the above conclusions, Natural England put forward the following recommendations to DEFRA in late 2023 and advised that a clear policy statement should be published for England setting out the following:
That licences permitting the wild take of native birds of prey for falconry or avicultural purposes should not be issued other than in exceptional circumstances;
That the commercial use of native birds of prey taken from the wild under a licence issued for falconry or avicultural purposes – and any offspring of such birds –should not be permitted other than in exceptional circumstances; and,
That the power to grant licences remains on statute, with the adopted policy (as above) subject to future evidence-based review as required.
These are the recommendations that DEFRA has now endorsed and has implemented the policy of a presumption AGAINST issuing licences to take wild birds of prey for falconry and aviculture.
Natural England has stated that, ‘Whilst the power to grant licences will remain on statute, Defra ministers support the view that licences should not be issued, other than in exceptional circumstances. No evidence was provided during the review process that would support the issuing of licences for any specific exceptional circumstances at the present time‘.
There’s a useful Natural England blog on the subject, here.
For those interested in Natural England’s policy review, it can be read/downloaded here:
Many, many thanks to all of you who signed the Northern Ireland Raptor Study Group’s (NIRSG) petition calling for a ban on the possession of dangerous, raptor-killing pesticides.
The petition has just passed its target of 50,000 signatures and the NIRSG has issued the following press release:
The NIRSG held a recent Raptor Conference which provided incredible insights into a range of topics locally and globally. Many of the talks raised a consistent theme of targeted persecution of birds of prey. Not least amongst these was the on-going issue in Northern Ireland of the Possession of Dangerous pesticides.
Some of the NIRSG 2025 conference attendees supporting the call for a ban on dangerous, raptor-killing pesticides. Photo by Marc Ruddock
The NIRSG highlighted that 63 raptors have been killed between 2009 and 2023 with a range of poisons, dominated by Carbofuran which has been banned for nearly 25 years. There have been at least 30 buzzards, 16 peregrine falcons, 13 red kites, 3 white tailed eagles and 1 golden eagle all poisoned in this time frame.
This evidence is collated by the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime in Northern Ireland (PAW NI) and published in raptor persecution reports, which include ‘hotspots’ of illegal killing of our native birds of prey. These reports are publicly available on the PAWNI webpage available here and also aggregated in the RSPB Bird Crime reports available here.
In 2011, the wildlife legislation in Northern Ireland was strengthened, resulting in increased sentences of £5,000 fines (per offence) and up to 6 months imprisonment. The updated laws included a provision to ban the possession of prescribed ingredients under “Section 15B Possession of pesticides harmful to wildlife” of the Wildlife (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 as amended.
As part of that legislation there should have been an attached Order listing the banned chemicals. That list has never been created. Wildlife has continued to be poisoned by these dangerous and banned substances.
The legislation states in Section 15B Part 2: “A prescribed ingredient is one which is prescribed for the purposes of this Article by an order made by the Department; but the Department may not make an order under this Article unless it is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient to do so in the interests of protecting wild birds or wild animals from harm”. [Emphasis added by NIRSG]
There is significant evidence of continued harm from banned pesticides to birds of prey, based on robust post-mortem and laboratory results, which has been published in many reports. We believe it is indeed expedient for Minister Andrew to implement this Order to protect our birds of prey from harm. 50,000 people agree with us. Thank you to everyone who has supported the petition and helped give a voice to our wildlife.
The NIRSG will be seeking a meeting with Minister Andrew Muir to present the petition now that it has surpassed 50,000 signatures.
Last November the BBC aired an episode of Highland Cops (Series 2, Episode 4) that featured a Police Scotland Wildlife Crime Officer, PC Dan Sutherland, investigating the suspicious disappearance of a satellite-tagged golden eagle on a grouse moor in the Highlands (available for next 9 months on iPlayer here, starts at 35.15 mins).
The programme followed PC Sutherland, along with an RSPB Investigations Officer, searching the moor for evidence of either the eagle or its tag.
PC Sutherland is an experienced WCO and he explained that this wasn’t the first time he’d been involved in an investigation into this type of incident and he gave a comprehensive commentary on the lengths that offenders will go to to hide the evidence of their crimes (e.g. tags being burned, tags being tied to rocks and dumped in lochs).
He also said: “So within Highlands & Islands, 100% of all birds of prey that are being killed happen on or near land that’s managed for gamebird shooting“.
The Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA) lodged a formal complaint to the BBC about what the SGA described in its quarterly members’ rag as having “caused unfair reputation [sic] damage” to the game-shooting industry and wanted the BBC to make “a prominent correction“.
Here’s the response from the BBC’s Executive Complaints Unit, published 13 February 2025:
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone, not least the SGA, that this complaint was not upheld. The Scottish Parliament voted overwhelmingly last year to introduce new legislation (Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024) precisely because raptor persecution, and particularly the illegal killing of golden eagles, persists on many driven grouse moors.
Well done PC Sutherland for saying it as it is, and well done to the BBC for not pandering to the histrionics of the SGA.
In December 2024, long-delayed recommendations by the Health & Safety Executive (HSE) for restrictions to be placed on the use of lead ammunition in the UK were finally published.
Used shotgun cartridges. Photo by Ruth Tingay
A press release issued by the HSE at the time of publication stated that under the new proposals the use of lead shot for live quarry shooting and target shooting would be prohibited.
Dr Richard Daniels, HSE’s Director of Chemicals Regulation Division was quoted:
“Following a comprehensive analysis of the evidence, we propose new restrictions to protect wildlife, particularly wildfowl and birds of prey, from lead poisoning. They would prevent an estimated 7,000 tonnes of lead entering the environment each year.
Golden eagles are particularly susceptible to lead poisoning. Photo by Pete Walkden
“The final agency opinion follows significant responses to two public consultations. We worked through nearly 11,000 responses – dwarfing the recent exercise in the EU.
“This detailed work, carried out under our UK REACH obligations, sets out the necessary balance we have struck to protect the environment and minimise disruption to those who shoot.
“Currently, the risks of lead shot to the wider environment are not adequately controlled. While there are already legally binding measures in place to protect Britain’s wildlife in designated wetlands from the use of lead shot, our analysis has demonstrated the need for further restrictions.
“People will still be able to continue to shoot, but we are proposing that for some outdoor uses in the future, alternatives to lead ammunition would need to be used.”
For those who want to read the detailed proposals, here’s the document:
This issue has dragged on for far too long in the UK (e.g. see here) but now the recommendations have been published, the Governments in England, Wales and Scotland have a limited time period to respond.
A consortium of wildlife and environmental organisations has now written an open letter to the Secretary of State at DEFRA and his colleagues in the devolved Governments, urging them to use this opportunity to finally bring an end to the use of toxic lead ammunition, removing this pollutant from our environment and protecting the health of wildlife and human populations alike. Here’s the letter:
The same campaigners have also set up an e-action that provides an opportunity for you to contact Minister Steve Reed MP at DEFRA, urging him to implement a swift and full ban on the use of lead ammunition. If you’d like to participate (it only takes a couple of minutes), please click here.
For blog readers in Scotland I’d encourage you to email Minister Gillian Martin MSP, the Acting Cabinet Secretary for Net Zero and Energy (contact details here).
For blog readers in Wales, I’d encourage you to email Minister Huw Irranca-Davies MS, Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs (and also Deputy First Minister), whose contact details are here.
Don’t be under any illusion that the shooting industry will be rolling over and taking this lying down. They won’t. They’ll be lobbying hard to introduce further delays and to minimise the impacts of the proposed restrictions. It’s what they’ve been doing for years (e.g. here), whilst simultaneously claiming to be undertaking a five-year so-called ‘voluntary transition’ to using non-lead ammunition but failing miserably (see here), and failing to comply with current regulations on using lead ammunition in sensitive environments in England (here) and Scotland (here).
It’s important that Ministers hear from a wider section of society than those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Please do make use of the e-action and/or email Ministers in Scotland and Wales. For blog readers with a special interest in birds of prey, this article and the linked scientific paper from researchers at the University of Cambridge should provide all the motivation you need.
To make sure the DEFRA Secretary of State meets the legal requirements for responding to the HSE recommendations within three months of receiving them, lawyers representing conservation campaign group Wild Justice have written to him with the intention of holding him to that deadline. You can read the letter here.
UPDATE 18 March 2025: UK Governments miss deadline for responding to recommendations for restrictions on use of toxic lead ammunition (here)
The following is a guest blog by someone who wishes to remain anonymous, although I know their identity.
STOBO HOPE – DID GWCT ‘ADVICE’ HELP AVOID AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT ON THE DESTRUCTION OF BLACK GROUSE HABITAT?
Herbicide damage at Stobo Hope, July 2024
Regular readers may be familiar with Stobo Hope, a large area of heather moorland with wildlife including golden eagles and the second largest black grouse lek in the Scottish Borders. Wild Justice helped fund a successful judicial review by the Stobo Residents Action Group (see here) to try and save this habitat from a giant Sitka spruce plantation. The Scottish Government conceded the petition for judicial review in September 2024 before going to court, cancelling the taxpayer funded £2 million contract after realising that vast areas (potentially up to 400 hectares) had been blanket sprayed with herbicide (see here), in August 2023.
It strongly seems to me that government body Scottish Forestry, True North Real Asset Partners (managing the Stobo scheme and the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund in Guernsey) and forestry agents Pryor and Rickett Silviculture were all desperate to avoid an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which was successfully ‘screened out’ in January 2024 before the contract was awarded in February 2024.
Scottish Forestry will apparently determine again if an EIA is required, claiming they will take into account ‘all other new relevant information’ (see here). At the moment all work at Stobo has been stopped by court order so any work is unlawful. The Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund (based in a tax haven) has now lodged a petition for judicial review with the Court of Session in Edinburgh (December 2024) to try and cancel the enforcement notice by Scottish Forestry (see here).
It turns out that the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) were ‘advising’ Pryor and Rickett Silviculture (see here) and True North Real Asset Partners (see here), on how to ‘improve the suitability of the proposed planting area for black grouse’, despite the RSPB, reputable ecologists and NatureScot explaining that black grouse would leave due to the forestry scheme.
Scottish Forestry appear to have relied on recommendations (that were subsequently partially implemented) by the GWCT to help conclude that black grouse would not be significantly affected by the scheme so an EIA could be avoided. If an EIA was required, it would require a much more rigorous assessment of the ecological impacts of the proposal and require further public consultation which probably would have resulted in the scheme being no longer viable for the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund.
GWCT report, January 2022
Pryor and Rickett Silviculture were seemingly keen to follow up the GWCT’s advice on predator control, so applied to NatureScot for a fox hunting licence with nineteen dogs, but this was refused. The intended fox hunting was supposedly to reduce black grouse predation (see here), but seemed to be more for sporting than conservation purposes. NatureScot explained that there was no evidence of long-term benefit from the proposed fox hunting. As with the RSPB’s prediction of lek extinction at Stobo, NatureScot stated black grouse ‘tend to leave’ plantations of the kind proposed at Stobo:
How Scottish Forestry makes questionable claims to avoid EIAs
Virtually all woodland creation schemes in Scotland avoid an EIA, with just 4 EIAs for 729 ‘conifer option’ screening applications since 2015, according to a FoI response in March 2023 (see here). This appears to be due to forestry managers implausibly claiming that no significant negative environmental impacts will result from an environmentally destructive forestry scheme.
If a significant impact is said to result for woodland creation proposals above a certain size, an EIA is typically needed. Scottish Forestry simply repeats its contracted ecologist’s claims in its ‘screening opinion’ to determine no EIA is required prior to awarding a forestry contract. As a result, tens of thousands of hectares of priority wildlife habitats outside protected sites across Scotland are being damaged or destroyed by commercial forestry. These priority habitats and species are those that Scottish Ministers consider to be of principal importance for biodiversity conservation in Scotland. Under the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (see here), all public bodies in Scotland have a duty to further the conservation of biodiversity when carrying out their responsibilities. Scottish Forestry appear to be either unaware or negligent in its failure to deliver this duty.
At Stobo, ecologists Mabbett and Associates, now called Arthian Ltd (see here) in its ‘EIA update letter’ (January 2024) claimed the scheme ‘will not have a significant impact’:
Scottish Forestry used this statement to justify their decision to approve the scheme without an EIA and award a £2 million grant for a giant, mostly Sitka spruce plantation of nearly seven square kilometres at Stobo, claiming this scheme was ‘not likely to cause a significant negative environmental effect to black grouse’:
Scottish Forestry repeated this claim for golden eagles (Stobo is a significant area for this species) and for priority habitats such as upland heathland, purple moor grass and rush pasture and numerous other features of nature conservation value in its EIA ‘screening opinion’. These habitats host priority species such as the small pearl-bordered fritillary butterfly, hen harrier, cuckoo, reed bunting and red grouse. Scottish Forestry also claimed that it was unlikely there would be significant negative environmental impacts from the cumulative effects of neighbouring proposed or completed woodland creation schemes, resulting in fourteen square kilometres of contiguous moorland being fragmented by nearly ten square kilometres of predominantly commercial coniferous forestry.
Map of the proposed woodland
For the Stobo plantation, of the planted area, 72% is Sitka spruce, with a further 10% of commercial Scots pine and Douglas fir, so commercial coniferous forestry amounts to 82% of the planted area. The map below does not show three new plantations to the north, west, south or a proposed plantation to the east, creating a giant spruce plantation across what was previously contiguous moorland.
Supposed final planting plan for Stobo. Blue indicates Sitka spruce, green Douglas fir and orange commercial Scots pine. Native broadleaves are indicated by brown while light grey indicates open areas.
Scottish Forestry claimed there would be 246.4 hectares of open ground within 1.5 km of the lek, but omitted to mention that this remaining open ground would be heavily fragmented by 463.6 hectares of trees. Furthermore, much of this open area within 1.5km is sub-optimal habitat on exposed hilltops and ridges far from the lek and mostly unplantable anyway.
Extract from Scottish Forestry’s ‘screening opinion’ dated 18 January 2024
Black grouse need large areas of contiguous moorland – typically bog, dry dwarf shrub heath, marshy and acid grasslands. A 2014 report (No. 741) commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage (see here) – now NatureScot – found that in the Southern Uplands only 5% of moorland patches less than ten square kilometres (1,000 hectares) were occupied by black grouse:
The approximate location of the Stobo estate is circled red below, showing its relative isolation to other leks, several of which have since become extinct in the last ten years:
Map from Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 741 (2014). Stobo in red circle.
The ‘Black Grouse Habitat Management Area’ for Stobo
The forestry scheme applicants proposed a ‘Black Grouse Habitat Management Area’ within 1.5km of the lek to supposedly ‘mitigate’ the effect of planting nearly seven square kilometres of moorland. The stated open area within this habitat management area is only 84 hectares.
The GWCT stated in its January 2022 report for the forestry applicants that ‘the planting will likely have a significant impact on the visual landscape, land use and ground nesting birds’ and the planning process would ‘recommend measures to mitigate against any impacts of significance’:
The GWCT then stated later in the report that ‘the inclusion of low-density mixed broadleaves and areas of open ground within the site are unlikely to sufficiently limit the impacts of the planting plan on wading birds or black grouse’, then suggesting a ‘comprehensive predator control programme as part of any mitigation measures’:
A later report by the GWCT (March 2023) suggests that efforts had been made to increase the open area within 1.5km of the lek, recommending that 40% open ground should be retained ‘within the vicinity of a lek site’:
The final open area within 1.5 km of the lek could be around 35%, based on the 246.4 hectares in Scottish Forestry’s screening opinion, but much of this area is relatively unsuitable due to fragmentation and being on exposed ridges. The RSPB explains to the forestry agents (red text below) that the GWCT’s recommendation of 40% open ground applies to whole plantations, not just the ‘habitat management area’:
Another report (No. 545) commissioned by Scottish Natural Heritage and published in 2013 (see here), investigating habitat use by black grouse in Scotland, states:
The findings in this report (and other papers) suggest that schemes such as at Stobo will be unviable for black grouse. Areas around leks were on average, two-thirds moorland and the report suggests ‘a lekking group will likely require a continuous moorland area adjacent to forest habitats, that is at least five square kilometres’ (i.e. at least 500 hectares). At Stobo, Scottish Forestry has ignored both the large area of moorland required for an individual lekking group and the cumulative impacts of multiple woodland creation schemes. The 2014 Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 741 refers to ‘little consideration for landscape-scale conservation’:
The same report provides recommendations for conservation measures in Southern Scotland, suggesting that heather moorlands with leks should be ‘adequately protected from any future significant change in land use’:
This report also points out that ‘predator management in isolation may not prevent further declines without the provision and maintenance of suitable habitats’:
Herbicide treated moorland drained for Sitka spruce planting, Stobo Hope.
Did the GWCT advice influence Scottish Forestry into avoiding an EIA?
It appears that Scottish Forestry relied on specious mitigation measures such as a negligible reduction in planted area, predator control and a ‘Black Grouse Habitat Management Area’, to claim that the Stobo scheme was ‘not likely to cause a significant negative effect to black grouse’, thus avoiding an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). The decision by Scottish Forestry to not have an EIA would of course, seem to have huge financial benefits for the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund, as the hundreds of hectares of moorland that the Stobo lek needed could now instead be planted with Sitka spruce. Furthermore, Scottish Forestry incorrectly claimed the cumulative impacts of several forestry schemes were taken into account, despite research suggesting habitat connectivity with other large moorland areas was required for long-term viability of black grouse metapopulations.
Herbicide treated moorland, planted with Sitka spruce, Stobo Hope.
Did GWCT staff ignore its own research to help forestry managers and Scottish Foresty avoid an EIA?
The two Scottish Natural Heritage Reports (Nos 545 and 741) referenced in this blog showing woodland schemes like that at Stobo would be unviable for black grouse, were both authored by the GWCT. Two of the authors of these reports, Dave Baines and Phil Warren, are widely acknowledged as leading experts on black grouse with over 60 years of combined experience, but it is unclear if they were invited to advise on the Stobo proposals which were authored by the GWCT Advisor, Scotland. After several email exchanges between the GWCT and Pryor and Rickett Silviculture, the GWCT Advisor, Scotland eventually concluded in May 2023 that ‘I believe you now have a considered design that goes as far as practical in terms of accommodating for black grouse’.
This is far from a glowing endorsement of the proposals or indeed any kind of acknowledgement that there would be no significant impacts on black grouse.
Although some of the SNH reports’ content may be biased in favour of shooting interests, they do appear to demonstrate general habitat needs and the extent of these habitats required for black grouse.
Why did Scottish Forestry choose to ignore the RSPB’s prediction that lek extinction would result from the scheme?
The RSPB also stated there was a failure to assess the impact of the loss of habitat and nesting sites through afforestation, explaining that the forestry agents in their ‘woodland operational plan’ incorrectly asserted that the RSPB’s issues with the scheme had been resolved.
Heather moorland destroyed by herbicide, Stobo Hope. Picture courtesy of Ted Leeming photography (Copyright protected)
Harry Humble, CEO of True North Real Asset Partners, was probably very pleased with the GWCT’s advice, claiming in the Scotsman (see here) that ‘more than 140ha of the scheme has been designed specifically to favour black grouse, with an enhanced mix of species and open space provision in line with best practice derived from decades of research’.
Why did the GWCT appear not to tell Pryor and Rickett Silviculture and True North Real Asset Partners that its own research over many years showed the proposed Stobo scheme would likely cause black grouse lek extinction, instead of saying: ‘Ibelieve you now have a considered design that goes as far as practical in terms of accommodating for black grouse’?
Another exercise in ‘Greenwashing’ by Scottish Forestry?
Whoever invested in the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund must have been very pleased that Scottish Forestry decided to ignore the RSPB and seemingly disregard readily available, published black grouse research, such as that by the GWCT, commissioned by what is now NatureScot, demonstrating black grouse disappear from areas planted for commercial coniferous forestry. Hundreds of hectares of spruce at Stobo and on neighbouring land was in part permitted by Scottish Forestry under the false premise that the Stobo woodland creation scheme was ‘not likely to cause a significant negative environmental effect to black grouse’. This incorrect claim by Scottish Forestry and similarly incorrect claims relating to impacts on other wildlife and important habitats for many other woodland creation sites must certainly have helped financial gains through land values, carbon credits and funds in offshore tax havens, but sets a terrible precedent for our disappearing moorland landscapes.
The National newspaper published a special report on Monday 16 December 2024 entitled, ‘Why are birds of prey still being killed in Scotland despite new legislation?’, with a particular focus on the Cairngorms National Park.
It’s reproduced below.
SCOTLAND passed the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill earlier this year, introducing a licensing scheme for the grouse shooting industry in a bid to end the illegal killing of birds of prey.
The first licenses were issued this past summer, and while considered a blueprint for tougher legislation across the UK – people are still killing birds of prey on grouse moors, which is not an easy thing to do.
Guilty parties must have access to a vehicle, equipment such as a firearm, opportunity and motive.
“This isn’t people traveling from towns and cities going up onto our hills and randomly killing birds of prey. These are targeted offences,” Ian Thomson, investigations manager for the RSPB, told The National.
But why? And who would do this?
Why are grouse moor shootings still taking place?
A Hen Harrier disappeared in February. A buzzard was shot in Perthshire in mid-May. An osprey was shot in the Glen Doll area in August. A dead golden eagle was found in a plastic bag near Loch Rusky in November.
In the last 15 years, more than 1500 birds of prey have been killed, with 57 convictions. However, the majority of these sentences are suspended, and only one person has been jailed.
Most of the evidence gathered by investigators is from satellite tags, fitted to allow conservationists to monitor the movements around the country.
The technology is estimated to be about 97% reliable, and “very rarely suffers some sort of technical function”, according to Thomson.
“Often we believe that there is strong evidence that supports the fact that these birds are being shot often at night, the tags destroyed, and the carcass is disposed of,” Thomson said.
The RSPB investigations team assists Police Scotland by speaking to local land managers and liaising with the community if a tag stops working. When asked why anyone would target the birds, even with the new legislation in place, Thomson said: “The killings are being undertaken by people who are working on the land.
“That’s the reality, and the vast majority of raptor persecution offenses occurring in Scotland are linked to management for kind of game bird shooting and particularly grouse shooting.
“There are many layers of evidence that support that.
“First of all, the location of the incidents that are found. Whether its birds shot, birds poisoned, or nests destroyed, these are all subject to police investigations.
“A significant proportion of people convicted for raptor persecution offenses have been gamekeepers,” Thomson shared.
RSPB data shows that at least 54% of all confirmed incidents in the last 10 years (2014-2023) have been linked to land managed for pheasant, partridge and grouse shooting.
The association of these crimes with the gamebird industry is also evidenced by criminal court records. Of all individuals convicted of bird of prey persecution related offences from 2009 to 2023, 75% were connected to the gamebird shooting industry and 68% were gamekeepers.
The Angus Glens crime hotspot
Angus Glens in the Cairngorms is a hotspot for the number of raptor persecution in Scotland, with the Highlands having 69 since 2009.
There have been multiple confirmed incidents occurring on several estates in the area. This includes many poisoning incidents using chemicals whose possession was long banned, repeated illegal misusing abuse of crow traps and pole traps, shootings and destruction of nests.
Earlier this year, NatureScot placed restrictions on an estate on the edge of the Cairngorms National Park for three years following evidence of bird poisoning on the property.
Thomson said there had been 10 suspicious disappearances of satellite tags on birds of prey in the Angus Glen in the last 15 years.
There has been a peregrine, and an osprey shot since the start of the shooting season in Angus Glens this year, which Thomson described as “worrying”.
The law as it has stood since 2012 has been serious liability, which means landowners are responsible for the actions of their employees and the land.
So are landowners aware of the circumstances surrounding raptor persecutions on their land?
A wall of silence
The first licenses under the new bill were approved this past July, but Thomson noted there would have been no need for it had the industry “taken possession of this problem decades ago”.
He added: “I think had the industry rooted out criminals, then we wouldn’t have needed this sort of legislation moved on.
“We are in a situation where some Victorian management practices towards birds of prey persist. It really is time that the shooting industry got into the 21st century.”
Thomson said it was rare for estates to report raptor persecutions.
When asked whether estates may be protecting or turning a blind eye to those who target birds of prey, Thomson said he could not confirm but he and his team frequently hear of peer pressure within estates to keep reporting low, adding that crimes are rarely reported by the industry.
“The problem is the game keeping industry is used to operating a bit like a closed shop,” Thomson said.
“It’s very difficult. There is no whistleblowing culture, and it would be fantastic if organizations representing gamekeepers set up a scheme where people could report incidents taking place and those are passed on to the police.
“But that just never seems to happen. Exceedingly rare truths are told.”
Thomson revealed that gamekeepers come to the team sharing their worries and are “terrified” to come forward.
“They say to us this information can’t come from me because I may lose my job and I may lose my friends and I may lose my hobby. People are under considerable pressure to keep their mouths shut,” he said.
“Either people won’t see anything or there is just a culture of denial.”
Thomson described “efforts to deny or downplay” incidents, and said that when satellite tags start to disappear, people blame “imaginary wind farms” or factors, dismissing science and evidence of crimes.
“It’s a mix of cultural misinformation, a wall of silence and complete denial”, Thomson added.
ENDS
For those who are sick to the back teeth of birds of prey being illegally killed on grouse moors, you might want to sign this new petition from Wild Justice calling for a ban on driven grouse shooting – HERE.
The South Scotland Golden Eagle Project (SSGEP) has today announced the death of a young golden eagle after it collided with a wind turbine in Galloway in August this year.
The bird was a three-year old male called ‘Sparky’. He wasn’t one of the eagles translocated to south Scotland from the north by the SSGEP, but rather he fledged from one of the few remaining nests in south Scotland prior to the translocation project, but was carrying a satellite tag provided by that project, which helped in the swift recovery of his corpse.
Of course, Sparky’s death from collision with a turbine blade is a tragedy, but it’s important to view it from a broad perspective.
Golden eagle mortality from wind turbine collisions in Scotland is, thankfully, a rare occurrence. That’s not down to luck, or chance. It’s largely to do with detailed wind farm planning and choosing areas for turbines that are not located in habitats preferred by golden eagles.
A group of expert golden eagle ecologists, collaborating under an umbrella organisation called the Golden Eagle Satellite Tag Group (GESTG) has developed several models to predict significant areas of topographical use by golden eagles based on thousands of satellite tag records. The most recent model, called the GET (Golden Eagle Topographical) model, is now commonly used in Environmental Impact Assessments for judging the potential impact on golden eagles by proposed new wind farm sites across Scotland, and it works pretty well.
As an illustrative example, here is an image showing the movements of a satellite-tagged golden eagle that Chris Packham and I are tracking in the Monadhliath Mountains, on the western edge of the Cairngorms National Park. The red lines show the eagle’s movements around the footprint of three large windfarms and you can see that avoidance behaviour by the eagle is quite clear. (Thanks to Dr Alan Fielding for the data analysis and map).
This eagle’s avoidance strategy is not uncommon. Peer-reviewed scientific research papers by the GESTG have demonstrated that both young, dispersing non-territorial satellite-tagged golden eagles (here), as well as older territorial satellite-tagged eagles (here) will generally avoid wind farms if they have not been sited in prime golden eagle habitat.
I don’t know much about the Environmental Impact Assessment undertaken for the Windy Rig Wind Farm in Galloway where Sparky was killed but it’s probably worth noting that it was consented in 2017 (and became operational in 2022) at a time when there were very few golden eagles in south Scotland so perhaps golden eagle collision risk wasn’t assessed to be high.
I fully expect the death of Sparky to be pounced upon by the raptor persecution deniers within the game-shooting industry, who will no doubt be jumping up and down, pointing fingers and announcing, ‘There! See? We told you that wind farms are killing golden eagles, it’s not us gamekeepers“, as they’ve been doing for years, for example this headline from 2017:
Alas, for them, the scientific evidence simply doesn’t support their claims (read the two linked papers above and also see Chapter 8 of the authoritative 2017 report by Drs Fielding & Whitfield: Analysis of the Fates of Satellite Tracked Golden Eagles in Scotland, where the authors examined whether any of the 41 tagged eagles that had ‘disappeared’ in suspicious circumstances were within the vicinity of a wind farm (spoiler alert – no, they weren’t, but illegal killing on a number of grouse moors was indicated).
Raptor collisions at wind farms has been a huge problem in some countries, notably in the USA at Altamont Pass in California where a long network of turbines was installed along the very ridgeline that migrating golden eagles use to take advantage of wind updrafts as they fly south. Anti-wind farm campaigners often point to these sites and assume that just because many golden eagles were killed at sites such as Altamont, it must mean that golden eagles are being killed at other wind farm sites. That’s simplistic nonsense, but some from the grouse-shooting industry have jumped on this to try and deflect attention away from the illegal shooting, trapping and poisoning of golden eagles that goes on in Scotland.
But it doesn’t wash anymore, and thank goodness the Scottish Government saw through the propaganda when it made the decision to introduce a grouse moor licensing scheme a couple of years ago.
That’s not to say that we should be unconcerned about golden eagles colliding with turbines – of course it needs to be monitored and the imminent construction of even more on-shore turbines needs to be carefully curated to ensure they’re built in the most appropriate locations, but thanks to ongoing satellite tag data analysis by experts in the GESTG, those potential impacts can be minimised.
The young Golden Eagle, fitted with a satellite-tag, was being monitored by researchers in Scotland until it suddenly disappeared in the Angus Glens – an area dominated by grouse moors and with a history of raptor persecution.
Scotland’s national bird, Golden Eagles are still heavily – and criminally – persecuted.
The sudden disappearance of a satellite-tagged Golden Eagle has sparked concerns of criminal activity in the Angus Glens.
The young bird, which hatched in Tayside in 2022, was fitted with a satellite tag while in its nest. This work was supported by Forestry and Land Scotland for research purposes.
The tag was transmitting as expected until May 2024 when it suddenly went offline. Its last known location was an area of moorland in the Angus Glens – an area with a long history of illegal bird of prey persecution.
The data from the bird’s tag was swiftly provided to the police for independent scrutiny. Police Scotland, the National Wildlife Crime Unit and RSPB Scotland then conducted a search of the area but found no trace of the bird or its tag.
It is a crime to kill a bird of prey, and anyone caught doing so faces a fine or even jail. Furthermore, legislation introduced in March 2024 means that, if illegal activity takes place on a grouse moor, that grouse moor could lose its license to operate.
Will Hayward, RSPB Scotland Senior Investigations Officer, said: “The sudden cessation of transmissions from this tag strongly suggests human interference, and reflects a pattern of tagged birds ‘disappearing’ almost exclusively on or near grouse moors that has become all too evident in recent years. Had this bird died of natural causes or if the tag had become detached, we would be able to locate and retrieve it. Given the well-proven reliability of this technology, when no body or tag is found, this is highly suspicious. We believe this bird has been killed and the tag destroyed.”
Unfortunately, this young bird is the latest of many to disappear without explanation on or near a grouse moor.
Angus was one of the raptor crime hotspots identified in a Government-commissioned report on the fates of satellite tracked golden eagles in Scotland, published in 2017. Sadly there has been no let-up in confirmed incidents and suspicious disappearances since then. Most recently, an Osprey was found shot in the Glen Doll area on 12 August – the opening day of the grouse shooting season. [Ed: And a Peregrine was found shot in the Angus Glens on 3 September 2024, here]. And earlier this year sat-tagged Hen Harrier ‘Shalimar’ disappeared in circumstances similar to this Golden Eagle.
If you notice a dead or injured bird of prey in suspicious circumstances, call Police Scotland on 101 and fill in the RSPB’s online reporting form here.
If you have information about anyone killing birds of prey which you wish to report anonymously, call the RSPB’s confidential Raptor Crime Hotline on 0300 999 0101.
Press release from Police Scotland (5th November 2024):
INVESTIGATION UNDERWAY AFTER GOLDEN EAGLE FOUND IN A BAG NEAR PORT OF MONTEITH
An investigation is under way after a dead golden eagle was found on a forestry track off A81 near Loch Rusky, north east of Port of Monteith.
The eagle was discovered around 11am on Tuesday, 30 July, 2024, wrapped in a plastic bag and body parts had been removed.
Enquiries have been ongoing and now officers are appealing for help to find out how it came to be there.
Golden eagles are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and anyone with information is asked to contact Police Scotland on 101, quoting incident number 1166 of 30/07/24 or make a call anonymously to Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.
It’s not clear why it has taken Police Scotland this long to issue an appeal for information.
There also aren’t any indications about which body parts were missing – although I can understand why they wouldn’t divulge that level of detail for operational reasons.
There are reasons why some body parts might have been removed – e.g. legs, either to remove an identifying leg ring, or to disguise spring trap injuries; head, as some sort of ‘trophy’.
It’s unusual to find a dismembered corpse inside a bag. Why do that?Presumably the eagle was killed and dismembered elsewhere and was put inside the bag to make it easier to transport and dump.
The only other similar incident I can recall was the discovery of nine shot raptors found in bags outside two gamekeepers’ houses on Millden Estate and on the riverbank of a neighbouring estate in the notorious Angus Glens (see here).
Without a tip off from someone, backed up with photographic evidence and/or DNA work, I very much doubt the police will be able to solve this one.
In July this year many of you supported a crowdfunder set up by the Stobo Residents Action Group who were taking a judicial review against the Scottish Government agency Scottish Forestry’s decision to approve a commercial woodland project, including a large sitka spruce plantation, on valuable moorland habitat in the Scottish Borders, a site important for many species but particularly for black grouse and golden eagles. The main premise of the legal challenge was that Scottish Forestry approved the work application after wrongly determining that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not required (see here).
Photo by Stobo Residents Action Group
This evening the Stobo Residents Action Group has published an update about its legal challenge on its crowdfunder page. Part of it is replicated here:
Stobo Hope: taxpayer funded £2 million forestry grant contract cancelled.
Court of Session rescinds £2 million contract, all funding, EIA decision and grant of consent
We are pleased to announce that an agreement has been reached between Stobo Residents Action Group Ltd (the Petitioner in the judicial review) and the Scottish Ministers (the Respondent in the judicial review) which has resulted in the reduction (legal cancellation) of the grant contract for the Stobo woodland creation scheme managed by True North Real Asset Partners Ltd.
The screening decision by Scottish Forestry dated 18 January 2024 (which determined that no Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was required) and the grant of consent by Scottish Forestry dated 27 February 2024 have also been reduced by the court.
As a result of the court’s order, any continuation of forestry development at Stobo Hope is, until a new decision on consent has been made, unlawful.
The Scottish Ministers have, in effect, agreed to the granting of the remedies sought by the petitioner (on the basis that there was a failure to consider the impact of blanket spraying four square kilometres with herbicide) rather than contesting our petition through to a substantive hearing in the Court of Session. As a result, the court is not required to determine if the Respondent had acted lawfully.
We continue to believe the decision to forego an EIA was unlawful for other reasons, including but not limited to:
A failure to properly consult NatureScot and give weight to its recommendation that the woodland scheme should be an EIA project, in part due to the likely significant effects on the National Scenic Area; and
A failure to address cumulative impacts of multiple forestry schemes nearby.
The court is, however, no longer required to determine those matters because of the agreement mentioned above. Should Scottish Forestry repeat its decision to not have an EIA for the Stobo woodland creation scheme a second time, we will examine that decision very closely and it is probable we will lodge a new petition to challenge that decision where there are grounds to do so.
Unfortunately, works were continuing yesterday on site (10 September 2024) notwithstanding the lack of any consent, causing further destruction, including ground preparation works on Penvalla (picture below). Scottish Ministers have been made aware of this.
Photo by Stobo Residents Action Group
We are extremely grateful to our solicitors, Balfour and Manson, for all their hard work, support and patience over the last eight months in achieving this outcome for the Stobo Residents Action Group. We are confident that this will lead to better, more transparent decision-making about sustainable rural landuse across Southern Scotland and result in the better use of scarce public funds to support rural communities and protect their natural environment.
Adverse environmental impacts of inappropriately sited commercial conifer plantations.
The £2 million of taxpayer funds were seemingly meant to subsidise returns for the Forestry Carbon Sequestration Fund, a registered collective investment scheme based in the tax haven of Guernsey, through developing an appreciable Sitka spruce plantation and the sale of carbon credits.
The intended pecuniary gains from this scheme appear to be correlated with the extent and intensity of destruction of Stobo Hope’s unimproved grasslands, wetlands and internationally important dry dwarf shrub heath, with the consequential extirpation of fauna including the black grouse, threatened with extinction in the Southern Uplands.
Similar taxpayer-funded schemes cumulatively costing hundreds of millions of pounds in the past decade alone have destroyed tens of thousands of hectares of semi-natural habitats across Scotland. The UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world and current Scottish forestry policy (permitting the wrong tree in the wrong place) is at odds with Scottish Government pronouncements to reversing biodiversity loss. Section 1 of the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act, 2004 places a general duty on public bodies and office holders (who include Scottish Forestry) to further the conservation of biodiversity. It is not evident that this has been a consideration with this project.
Pryor and Rickett Silviculture Ltd, the forestry developers, submitted an application to Scottish Forestry for a screening opinion to determine if an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was required for the Stobo Woodland Creation Scheme in June 2023.
Pryor and Rickett Silviculture Ltd failed to disclose to Scottish Forestry that four square kilometres of land would be blanket sprayed with herbicide, killing all plant life and associated dependent fauna. It was also confirmed that blanket spraying of herbicide was contrary to good forestry practice and the UK Forestry Standard. As a direct result of our judicial review, after the petitioner provided the respondent in August 2024 with photographs of the landscape-scale destruction of unimproved grasslands, wetlands and heather moorland, a prompt investigation was conducted. It was established that a large area had been blanket sprayed with herbicide in August 2023, apparently unnoticed by Scottish Forestry.
Given the unauthorised works in August 2023 and other factors, it seems to us that investors and forestry managers were confident that approval by Scottish Forestry of the proposed Stobo woodland creation scheme in its then current iteration (or virtually identical subsequent iterations) would be a foregone conclusion. This approval would be irrespective of past, ongoing or yet-to-take-place consultations with others, including NatureScot, the RSPB or members of the public.
A new ecological impact assessment of the proposal should be undertaken in line with the Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment in the UK and Ireland (CIEEM, 2018) and importantly assess the values of ecological features present on the site at the time of the ecological surveys undertaken by Nevis Environmental Ltd (now Mabbett & Associates Ltd) in support of the scheme in 2021, rather than after blanket herbicide treatment and other works.
Fundraising – a special thanks to Wild Justice
We are very grateful for your generous donations, notably £5,000 from Wild Justice, an organisation dedicated to wildlife through challenging government decisions in the courts, campaigning for legislative improvements and providing others with support to protect nature. Wild Justice raised our campaign profile through the highly recommended Raptor Persecution UK blog.
Wild Justice is run by Dr Ruth Tingay, with thirty years of expertise in raptor research and conservation, Dr Mark Avery, conservationist and scientist, and Chris Packham CBE, naturalist, film maker and presenter.
The Raptor Persecution UK blog written by Dr Ruth Tingay focuses on campaigning against the illegal killing of birds of prey, including in the Southern Uplands of Scotland, where golden eagles continue to be killed.
Campaigns by Wild Justice include returning tens of thousands of hectares of internationally important heathland to a favourable condition on Dartmoor’s commons. We would be grateful if you could donate to Wild Justice and read more about their work. Thank you.
What happens next in our campaign?
Our campaign hopes that Scottish Forestry will not approve the Stobo Hope woodland creation scheme. We hope to engage constructively with Scottish Forestry, with a genuine participatory role for charities, public and private bodies, benevolent landowners and the local community. The saving of £2 million of taxpayer funds arising from our success so far in this campaign creates a greater opportunity for an alternative woodland creation project at Stobo Hope under different ownership with social and economic benefits. Such a project could be a visionary one with a moderate amount of native woodland and natural regeneration while retaining large areas of contiguous moorland, grassland and wetland habitats for traditional cattle grazing with mutual benefits for conservation and nature friendly agriculture.
We will keep you informed of forthcoming developments.
Future Donations?
Donations to this crowdfunder (net of crowdfunder fees) are only for our legal costs, which will be published in a future update. The Stobo Residents Action Group are unpaid volunteers. If you are considering donating or have already donated, we would be grateful if you could consider the following:
At present there is uncertainty about future legal costs because we do not know how the current situation at Stobo will develop.
We may have significant future legal costs for further legal action, such as a new petition if Scottish Forestry attempt to approve the existing or a modified woodland creation scheme without an EIA.
However, we may not have significant future legal costs, if at all, if a favourable outcome for Stobo can be achieved without the need for further legal action.
The overview section of our crowdfunder campaign expressed our intention that the decision by Scottish Forestry to approve the woodland creation project be reversed. To date we have successfully cancelled the decision to approve this project without an EIA. We hope to achieve a position where the current woodland project or a modified project will never be approved.
We will keep our position under review and at a future juncture any remaining funds will be donated to the Borders Forest Trust (Scottish Charity No. SC024358). This charity has an excellent record in woodland and biodiversity restoration, such as its 3,100 hectares of ‘Wild Heart’ land in the Southern Uplands. If you would like any further information, please do not hesitate to contact us through this crowdfunder page.
ENDS
This is a brilliant result. It’s even more so because it was achieved by a small group of knowledgeable and committed volunteers rather than a massive NGO with all the associated resources. The Stobo Residents Action Group, along with its lawyers, have put together a strong case that has forced Scottish Ministers to cancel the contract rather than face costly court proceedings. They deserve this win and I applaud the considerable time and effort they’ve put in to get it.
Thanks also to everyone who supported the group by contributing to the crowdfunder. I’d encourage you to visit the crowdfunder page to read more background about the legal challenge and to keep an eye on the group’s next moves.
UPDATE 10 December 2024: Investment firm applies for judicial review against decision to halt commercial forestry plantation at Stobo Hope, Scottish Borders (here).
Raptor Persecution UK 