Tag: goshawk

Death toll rises again in Ross-shire massacre as £5k reward offered

The death toll in what we are calling the Ross-shire Massacre has risen again today with the discovery of another poisoned raptor. Today’s dead red kite is the 10th to be discovered in the last fortnight in a small area in Conon Bridge, along with four buzzards, bringing the total found to date to fourteen.

RSPB Scotland is offering a £5,000 reward for any information that leads to a successful conviction. Their money is probably quite safe.

Chairman of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, Alex Hogg, has put out the following statement:

“The discovery of so many birds in one area is unprecedented and alarming“.

He’s either deliberately lying to make out that the mass killing of raptors in one area has never happened before or he has a very short memory:

In 2004, a gamekeeper on the Barns Estate in the Scottish Borders was convicted of poisoning 20 raptors (18 buzzards, 1 goshawk and 1 tawny owl). 25 dead raptors had been discovered but five were too badly decomposed to establish their cause of death (see here).

In 2013, gamekeeper Colin Burne was convicted of killing seven buzzards at the Whinfell Plantation, Penrith, Cumbria. A total of 12 dead birds had been found but five were too badly decomposed to establish their cause of death (see here).

This year, there is an on-going court case against a gamekeeper from the Stody Estate, Norfolk, after the discovery of 16 dead raptors (14 buzzards, 1 sparrowhawk and 1 tawny owl). Allen Lambert has admitted to storing two banned pesticides but he has denied killing the raptors. His trial begins in May (see here).

So far from this current incident being ‘unprecedented’, there are examples dating from 10 years ago right up to the present day of multiple dead raptors being found in a single incident – a telling indictment of just how little progress has been made in addressing this disgusting crime.

There’s also a statement on the SGA facebook page that includes this:

“Articles in the Telegraph and Herald this week indicated, through research, that there is little or no shooting interests in the area” [Conon Bridge, Ross-shire, where the latest atrocity is gradually being revealed].

That’s also inaccurate. There may not be a driven grouse moor in the immediate area but there certainly are shooting interests…

Photo of red kites at Gigrin Farm, Wales, by David Bowman.

Previous blogs on the Ross-shire Massacre here, here and here.

Gamekeeping orgs’ half-witted attempts to blur the truth

Birdcrime 2012Earlier this month the RSPB published two reports: one detailing raptor persecution crimes in Scotland during 2012 (see here) and one detailing raptor persecution crimes throughout the UK in 2012 (see here).

You’d think that the RSPB’s so-called ‘partners’ in the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW) would welcome the reports, highlighting as they do the continued criminal persecution of birds of prey. That’s what PAW partners are all about, right? Raising public awareness and finding ways of cracking down on wildlife crime?

Apparently not.

Here is the response of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation to the RSPB’s UK-wide report. In case they decide to remove it from their website, we’ve reproduced it here:

NGO Comments on the RSPB 2013 Birdcrime Report

Saturday 14th Dec 2013

The National Gamekeepers’ Organisation has issued the following comment on publication of the latest edition of the RSPB Birdcrime Report.

A spokesman for the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation said: “The NGO stands for keepering within the law and automatically condemns illegal activity. That is why the NGO is proud to be a member of PAW – the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime. Furthermore, science has proven gamekeepers to be some of the most effective conservationists working in the British countryside today.

Intriguingly the RSPB’s shrill comments on persecution appear to lack the context that is essential for the public to form its own considered opinion. What the RSPB fails to mention in its news release is that the UK’s bird of prey population, taken as a whole, is thriving, with almost all species at record high levels. 

This seems a curious oversight for a charity required by law to educate the public in a balanced manner. This very important omission is intriguing, given the RSPB’s usually conscientious approach to its work. I believe it is fair to ask whether it’s perhaps to encourage charitable donations to the RSPB in the run-up to Christmas, a time of year when people are quick to put their hands in their wallets?

To view the RSPB 2013 Birdcrime Report News Release visit http://www.rspb.org.uk/media/releases/359085-sixty-years-of-protection-but-the-killing-continues

Good god, where do we start? With the bit about gamekeepers being ‘some of the most effective conservationists working in the British countryside today’?!! Or the bit about how we, the general public, are unable to form our own ‘considered opinion’ because the report apparently ‘lacks context’?!!

How about the statement: “What the RSPB fails to mention in its news release is that the UK’s bird of prey population, taken as a whole, is thriving, with almost all species at record high levels“.

The reason the RSPB ‘failed to mention’ this is probably because it’s a big fat massive distortion of the truth! ‘Almost all species at record high levels‘? That would be ‘almost all species’ apart from golden eagle, white-tailed eagle, hen harrier, red kite, goshawk, peregrine; all of which are being held at unnaturally low population levels thanks to illegal persecution, according to countless scientific studies.

And what on earth does ‘taking the UK’s bird of prey population as a whole‘ mean? Where’s the scientific validity of that? It’s absolutely meaningless pseudo-scientific rubbish! It’s like saying there’s no need to be concerned about the near-extinction of rhinos or elephants in Africa because big mammals ‘as a whole’ are doing ok.

sam4Not to be outdone in the idiot stakes, the NGO’s Scottish colleagues at the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association have published their own statement in response to the RSPB’s Scotland Persecution report.  We’ve reproduced it here:

SGA STATEMENT: RSPB BIRD OF PREY REPORT

Following the release of an unofficial report by the RSPB today on the Illegal Killing of Birds of Prey in 2012, the SGA issued the following response. An SGA Spokesman said: “The RSPB has clearly spent a lot of money in writing this report, which entitles them to put forward their own viewpoint. “With this agenda in mind, it is important, that the public refer to the actual crimes, as published annually by the Scottish Government with information provided officially by the Police and SASA, rather than speculative possible or suspected cases, which are clearly going to confuse the public. “All PAW partners, including ourselves, are fully behind the printing of the official statistics annually, based on actual legal cases, and see no reason why this should change. “While we have been encouraged by the progress made, with the official statistics stating a record of only 3 confirmed cases of illegal poisoning of birds of prey in 2012, reports such as this do little other than damage to on-going partnership efforts designed to reduce crimes against birds of prey. “As stated consistently, the SGA continues to advocate legal means to solving countryside conflicts. Because of this, the clarity and impartiality provided by law is important to us.”

Again, not what you might expect from a PAW ‘partner’. According to the SGA, the public are ‘clearly going to be confused’ by the report’s contents. Really? Is anybody ‘confused’? We’re not – the report presents the facts in the most clear way possible – the illegal persecution of raptors continues to take place on game-shooting estates up and down the country. Our raptors are still being poisoned, trapped, shot, and bludgeoned to death on sporting estates and the majority of the criminals are still avoiding prosecution: we call them The Untouchables.

It’s also interesting to see the SGA continue to peddle the myth that poisoning is in decline. According to our 2013 figures, poisoning in Scotland has actually increased by 66% in this, the Year of Natural Scotland, and that’s not including the discovery of poisoned baits…if we included every single poisoned bait found this year (as each one had the potential to kill at least one raptor had the baits not been discovered and removed), then the figure would jump to a phenomenal 1,333% increase in poisoning!!!

The SGA claims that the RSPB’s report does ‘little other than damage the on-going partnership efforts designed to reduce crimes against birds of prey’. We would argue that the SGA’s continued involvement in the PAW Scotland raptor group, and the NGO’s continued involvement in the English PAW group, does little other than taint the credibility of the PAW concept. In fact it doesn’t just taint it – it soaks it in implausibility. The sooner the other PAW partners realise this and vote these gamekeeping organisations off the panel, the better. PAW is not going to achieve anything as long as some of the ‘partners’ continue to deny and distort the facts. Oh, and harbour convicted wildlife criminals.

North Yorks still worst place for raptor persecution in 2012

The RSPB has published its 2012 Birdcrime report documenting bird persecution throughout the UK.

North Yorkshire has once again come top of the league for the number of reported crimes against birds of prey (34), with Aberdeenshire a close second with 31 reported incidents. Both counties, of course, include large areas of land used for driven grouse shooting.

The 2012 report includes statistics that are all too familiar: confirmed shootings of short-eared owls, sparrowhawks, buzzards, barn owls, tawny owls, hen harriers, golden eagles, marsh harriers, and peregrines; confirmed nest destruction of peregrines, goshawks and barn owls; confirmed illegal spring-trapping of buzzards, golden eagle and peregrine; other types of illegal trapping (including crow cage traps) of sparrowhawks, tawny owls, buzzards and goshawks; and the confirmed illegal poisoning of ravens, red kites, buzzards, golden eagles, marsh harriers, peregrines, cats and dogs.

Remember, these are just the confirmed incidents. Plenty more ‘probable’ and ‘unconfirmed’ cases, and of course there are all the incidents that went undiscovered/unreported.

Does that sound to you like the game-shooting industry is cleaning up its act?

Well done to the RSPB for their meticulous work and especially for their willingness to share these data with the general public.

RSPB press release here

Download the RSPB’s 2012 Birdcrime report here

The photograph shows the shot hen harrier Bowland Betty, found on a North Yorkshire grouse moor in 2012. Nobody has been brought to justice for her death.

RSPB Scotland publishes 2012 persecution report

sam4RSPB Scotland has today published its annual persecution report which documents the known and suspected incidents of  illegal raptor killing throughout Scotland in 2012.

It’s a shame it’s taken so long to get it published, but that minor criticism aside, massive kudos and appreciation to them for their continued meticulous collection of these data and especially their willingness to publish them. Without these reports the general public, and probably the government, would be unaware of exactly what’s going on in our countryside. If we relied upon the ‘official’ figures (i.e. those ‘approved’ by the likes of Scottish Land & Estates, the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, Police Scotland etc) we wouldn’t know the half of it.

The 2012 report, just like all the previous 18 reports, makes for grim reading. Sure, it documents a reduction in the number of birds known to have been illegally poisoned last year; some people (guess who?) have spent much of 2013 shouting about this as being evidence of the game-shooting industry cleaning up its act – we know better – the 2013 figures (to date) show no such reduction and in fact show an increase in known poisoning incidents…but more of that next year. Let’s focus on the 2012 report for now.

Three things caught our attention in this report. The first thing was the Foreword by Stuart Housden, RSPB Scotland Director. This is the hardest-hitting Foreword of his that we’ve read. In the past it’s been a bit wishy-washy, with too many platitudes aimed at the landowning and gamekeeping communities and suggestions that the raptor killers are just an unrepresentative minority. This time it’s quite different:

“It is evident that a significant number of individuals or estates illegally persecute birds of prey“.

Is this subtle change of language an indication that RSPB Scotland is tiring of the whole ‘partnership-working’ pretensions? Let’s hope so.

The second thing to catch our attention was an entry in Table 3 (page 24): Confirmed incidents of illegal killing or attempted killing (excluding poisoning) of birds of prey in Scotland, 2012

The entry of interest is this:

‘February. Buzzard caught in illegal spring trap. Nr Edzell, Angus’.

There isn’t any further detail about this incident, and it certainly hasn’t been publicised by the Police (no surprise there). However, for reasons that we can’t go in to right now, we are particularly interested in the details of this incident and would ask any blog reader with specific information to contact us, in confidence: raptor.persecution.scotland@hotmail.co.uk

The third thing that caught our attention was the Case Study: Poisoning in Progress (pages 19-20). This case relates to the discovery of poisoned corvids and poisoned bait found in the Borders in May 2012.

We’d blogged about this case in Sept 2012, criticising the Police for not publicising the discovery of poisoned birds and poisoned bait (see here). We also blogged about it in October this year, after the incident was excluded from the ‘raptor persecution’ section in the  Government’s ‘official’ 2012 Wildlife Crime Report (see here). We asked blog readers to contact the Environment Minister and ask why this incident had been excluded. Here is part of the reply received by one of our readers:

“You ask why a bird poisoning incident was omitted from the Scottish Government’s first annual report into wildlife crime. I can advise you that the incident in question was not listed in the section on raptor crime because no raptors were involved“.

Now, have a read of the Case Study in the RSPB’s report. Guess what was found at the scene? “The feathers and bones of two dead buzzards, lying beside the old, dried-out carcases of two rabbits, in a wood beside a partridge rearing pen. A dead crow was also found a short distance away“.

That’s a pretty clear indication that raptors were indeed involved.

According to the Case Study report, the rabbits were covered in dead insects (a sure indication of the presence of poison) and they were submitted for toxicology analysis, along with the crow. The buzzards were not submitted as they were considered too decomposed.

The results – all contained the pesticide Bendiocarb.

There was no police follow-up, no search, no nothing. Why not, when there was clear evidence of long-term poisoning at the site? And even better, the site is a very well-known raptor persecution blackspot in the Borders, where many other poisoned raptors have previously been discovered.

It’s just the same old familiar pattern, same shit, same locations, different year. The sooner the Government launches its public consultation on increasing the powers of the SSPCA to allow them to investigate raptor persecution, the better. (Where is that consultation anyway? We heard it would be launched in mid-Oct. No sign yet…)

Anyway, well done and thanks again to RSPB Scotland – funny, lots of poisoning, trapping and shooting incidents but not a single ‘death by tree’ report!!

Download the report: The Illegal Killing of Birds of Prey in Scotland 2012

SGA Chairman’s ignorance could fuel goshawk persecution

The Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association has recently published its autumn magazine. It’s full of quite remarkable material, as you might expect. We’ll be blogging about some of the articles in due course but thought we’d start with the ‘Chairman’s Column’, written by Alex Hogg.

He writes about a few issues but of particular concern to us is what he wrote about goshawks. Here’s an excerpt:

“My local newspaper has just published an article on ringing chicks at a goshawk nest on forestry commission ground. In the article, gamekeepers are criticised for persecuting goshawks, without any attempts at providing proof, journalistic balance or an attempt to look at the history of the goshawk in Scotland. For the past 35 years I have lived with goshawks on my doorstep. I strongly believe the goshawk never was indigenous to the United Kingdom and there is absolutely no hard evidence to suggest otherwise. Those that illegally released this species into the British Isles could legitimately be charged, therefore, with a wildlife crime. These nests in the article are in commercial forestry where there is nothing whatsoever for the poor chicks to eat. What happens then? The young make their way out onto keepered ground, managed at significant cost and time to create a richness in biodiversity. Our local red squirrel population is now under severe threat and much of this can be put down to predation by the goshawk. Most raptors will eat what they kill. The goshawk will kill over and over again. The largest number of pheasant poults I lost on a stubble in one strike was 35. God knows what this could mean for our poor Curlews and Lapwings, teetering on the brink. Balance must surely be considered before we lose more precious species“.

Hogg’s display of ignorance about this species is quite staggering. The history of the goshawk in the British Isles, including its indigenous status, has been very well documented in many scientific papers and books, as have the effects of the relentless persecution it has suffered and continues to suffer, as well as its varied diet which changes according to latitude and habitat (he should try reading this and the references listed as a basic introduction).

Such is the concern about ongoing goshawk persecution that the species is listed by the National Wildlife Crime Unit as one of the ‘priority species’ to focus on, along with golden eagle, hen harrier, peregrine, red kite and white-tailed eagle. Every single one of these species is suffering population-level effects thanks to the illegal persecution carried out by those with game-shooting interests. As a participating member of PAW Scotland and PAW Scotland’s Raptor Persecution Group, Hogg should be very well aware of the pressures already facing this species.

For somebody in his position to be writing such unsubstantiated nonsense about an already significantly-threatened raptor is completely unacceptable. There will be some readers of the SGA magazine who will assume that Hogg’s information is reliable and credible and could use it as justification to persecute the goshawk.

Hogg should be hauled over the coals by the PAW Scotland group for such ignorance and irresponsibility.

We’ll be returning to the issue of goshawk persecution by gamekeepers in the very near future…..watch this space.

Gos1

 

“Raptors are thriving on gamekeepered ground”, claims the SGA

There were some interesting sights at the 2013 Scottish Game Fair in early July, including this poster on the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association stand, entitled “Record Numbers of Raptor!!”[sic].

SGA Gamefair 005a

Any casual visitors to the SGA stand could be forgiven for thinking that raptors are doing just fine and there’s no cause for concern; that’s the message the SGA clearly wanted to portray. But let’s just look a bit more closely at their ‘information’, shall we?

You might think, given that this was the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association at the Scottish Game Fair, their raptor figures would just relate to raptors in Scotland. You’d be wrong. Rather disingenuously, they used data relating to raptor figures in the UK as a whole, not just Scottish data, thereby potentially misleading the public to believe that Scotland holds a significantly higher number of breeding raptors than it actually does.

For example, the SGA claims there are 760 pairs of red kites producing 1400+ young per year. Actually, the number of breeding pairs monitored in Scotland in 2012 was 214, with 314 fledged. This is thought to be ‘close to an accurate population estimate’ according to the Scottish Raptor Study Group.

Another example: the SGA claims there are 600 pairs of goshawks producing 1200+ young per year. Actually, the number of breeding pairs in Scotland is more like 150, with an estimated 200 occupied territories in total.

And another example: the SGA claims there are 1600 pairs of peregrines producing 3000+ young per year. Actually, the last national survey of peregrines in Scotland showed 542 breeding pairs, an 8% decline from the previous national survey.

And here’s yet another example: the SGA claims there are 690 pairs of hen harriers producing 1300+ young per year. Actually, the last national survey of hen harriers in Scotland showed 505 pairs, a 20% decline from the previous national survey.

In fact, the data they’ve provided for every species on this list, with the exception of the golden eagle, are a gross exaggeration of the respective Scottish populations of these birds. Did they choose these figures to deliberately mislead the public? Surely not.

In addition to using potentially misleading population figures, the SGA also chose to use data from 2002-2004. That’s a bit odd given that far more up to date data for many species (i.e. from as recently as 2011) are freely available in the public domain (see here). Now, what possible reason could they have for ignoring the more recent facts and figures? Surely nothing to do with the fact that these more recent data directly contradict the following SGA statement:

“That whilst most bird species are in decline raptors are at an all time high, since records began”.

Conveniently, this statement fails to mention the 20% decline in the Scottish hen harrier population, and the 8% decline in the Scottish peregrine population, not to mention the severely constrained Scottish populations of red kites, golden eagles and goshawks, all linked to the effects of illegal persecution taking place on gamekeepered land across Scotland. Funny that, isn’t it?

Even funnier is this photo (below), also pictured at the SGA stand. According to this, ‘Raptors are thriving on gamekeepered ground’. Conveniently (again), the list of raptor species they chose to illustrate this lie statement does not include hen harriers, peregrines, red kites, golden eagles or goshawks. Their statement is right up there with another SGA classic: “Professional gamekeepers do not poison raptors” (see here).

SGA Gamefair 006a

 

Misleading guff from Scottish Land and Estates

scotsman_logo_200The following letter has appeared in The Scotsman in the continuing ‘debate’ on grouse moor management (see here to read the earlier articles).

“Logan Steele’s letter (14 Jan) which alleges that driven grouse shooting is only viable with the persecution of birds of prey, particularly the hen harrier, is misleading.

First, official statistics demonstrate a clear decline in the number of incidents of raptor persecution.

Second land management for driven grouse shooting delivers a huge benefit for other protected wildlife, especially waders, and sustains employment and communities in remote rural areas. This is something the suggested alternative of walked-up grouse-shooting would not do.

Of particular significance is clear evidence that where grouse and hen habitat and vermin management have declined in some hen harrier “special protection areas”, this has actually resulted in lower harrier populations, as well as declines in other species such as waders.

This is a more complex situation than some make out.

The Langholm Moor Demonstration Project, set up in partnership with the government to bring back driven grouse shooting in the presence of sustainable numbers of hen harriers, is where the best hopes of progress on this issue lie.

Results at Langholm so far are that neither harriers nor grouse have recovered – not what anyone expected, but each year scientific understanding improves and practical solution gets closer.

Making progress will involve compromise on all sides.

Organisations representing grouse moor managers such as SLE are fully behind this process and it is unfortunate that RSPB has pulled out of the mediation process in England. Perhaps Scotland provides the best opportunity to make progress now.  Douglas McAdam, Scottish Land & Estates, Musselburgh”

[Link to the letter here].

And he accuses Logan Steele’s letter as being misleading!

First, which “official statistics demonstrate a clear decline in the number of incidents of raptor persecution” is Doug McAdam referring to? The ones we know of only relate to known poisoning incidents, although they are limited to poisoned birds; they do not include the discovery of poisoned baits and nor do they include suspected poisoning incidents or unreported poisoning incidents. More to the point, they do not relate to other types of raptor persecution, such as shooting, trapping, nest destruction, ‘disappearing’ birds etc. The only statistics that account for all types of raptor persecution incidents are those compiled annually by the RSPB; statistics that have never been accepted by SLE or any other game-shooting organisation.

Second, McAdam says “land management for driven grouse shooting delivers a huge benefit for other protected wildlife, especially waders, and sustains employment and communities in remote rural areas“. Another misleading statement. Land managed for driven grouse shooting is not only bad for protected wildlife (golden eagles, white-tailed eagles, hen harriers, goshawks, red kites, buzzards, peregrines, ravens, pine martens, mountain hares etc etc) but it is catastrophic for other species too (foxes, weasels, stoats, crows etc etc). And that’s without even touching on the landscape-level environmental damage.

McAdam goes on to suggest that “making progress will involve compromise on all sides“. No it won’t. Making progress will depend entirely on whether the grouse-shooting industry will accept that they have to work within the law and put an end to illegal persecution. If they do, all well and good. If they won’t, then they face a direct action campaign to ban driven grouse shooting by those of us who are sick of waiting for the government to act on our behalf. Hollow promises just don’t wash anymore. Time’s up.

McAdam’s penultimate sentence is laughable. He’s trying to suggest that the RSPB are the unreasonable ones in this 20+ year saga, for walking away from the six-year long Hen Harrier Dialogue process (see here). They are definitely not the unreasonable ones – they recognised a sham process and got out. Until SLE start to publicly expel their member estates where raptor persecution is rife (and we all know who they are, and so should McAdam – if he doesn’t, he’s in the wrong job), then the credibility of SLE’s involvement in ‘making progress’ will be viewed with as much contempt as it deserves.

RSPB Scotland: 2011 persecution report published

RSPB Scotland has just published its latest report, The Illegal Killing of Birds of Prey in Scotland in 2011. You probably won’t be surprised or shocked by the content, especially if you’ve read the previous 17 annual reviews. In fact, when you read this 18th review, you might get a strong sense of déjà vu.

It opens with a Foreword by Stuart Housden, Director of RSPB Scotland. Apart from the new photo, this foreword looks like a cut and paste job from the 2010 report, with a few words or sentences added or adjusted. To be fair, not much has changed since the 2010 report was published so perhaps he felt justified in repeating what he’d written the previous year.

Then there are RSPB Scotland’s strategic recommendations for addressing raptor persecution. Again, these show a remarkable similarity to the recommendations made in the 2010 report, and also in the 2009 report. The recommendations were / are still good and to see them repeated again is a useful indicator of how little progress has been made by those with the power to push them forward.

Next come the tables showing the confirmed and probable persecution incidents recorded by the RSPB during 2011. It’s these tables that the game-shooting lobby usually object too – they’re especially reluctant to accept the ‘probable’ incidents although to date, they’ve failed to provide a convincing argument to account for any of them.

The data in the 2011 tables demonstrate once again that illegal raptor persecution is widespread, with incidents reported in Perthshire, Angus, South Lanarkshire, Aberdeenshire, Dumfries-shire, East Ayrshire, Borders and Inverness-shire. We counted 15 very familiar-sounding locations within these regions, although there are a few notable absentees this time. Have they stopped their criminal activities or have they just got better at covering up? Time will tell.

Just focusing on the confirmed incidents, in total 17 incidents of deliberate poison abuse were confirmed during 2011, involving 20 victims: 7 buzzards, 4 red kites, 1 golden eagle, 2 peregrines, 2 ravens and 4 other bird species. Sixteen other illegal incidents relating to shooting, nest destruction, and the use of uncovered spring traps or cage traps were confirmed. The victims included 8 buzzards, 2 peregrines, 1 goshawk, 1 sparrowhawk, 2 kestrels and 1 short-eared owl. As in previous years, not all of these incidents were publicised at the time they occurred. It’s a continual disappointment that several years have to pass before the public learns of these appalling crimes.

Once again the occupations and interests of those convicted for illegal raptor persecution crime have been analysed (data from 2003-2011 inclusive). 87% of them were gamekeepers (7% pigeon racers, 3% pest controllers, 3% farmers).

The report includes an interesting case study of poisoned raptors that have been found in recent years on the Glen Kyllachy and Farr Estate near Inverness. Very little of this information has been previously published and certainly this is the first time these photographs have been published. It’s a shame it’s taken several years for the info and images to reach the public domain but nevertheless it’s very encouraging to see RSPB Scotland highlight these cases, especially as Northern Constabulary hasn’t bothered.

All in all the report makes for grim reading, but nobody should be surprised by that. We all owe a large debt of gratitude to the RSPB’s Investigations Team for meticulously collecting these data and especially for making them publically available.

TO DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE REPORT CLICK HERE

Here’s some media coverage:

RSPB Scotland press release here

BBC news article here

STV news article here

Herald Scotland article here

Scottish Gamekeepers Association: statement here

Scottish Land and Estates: nothing yet

@SNHMedia: “SNH report finds vast majority of gamekeepers highly qualified”. Link to this.

PAW Scotland: nothing yet

Police wco earns well-deserved recognition

For the benefit of those not on Twitter…

Devon & Cornwall Police Wildlife Crime Officer P.C. Josh Marshall has received a Commander’s Commendation at the South Devon Police Awards for his work on Operation Wilderness.

According to the RSPB’s recently published 2011 Birdcrime report, Devon had the worst record for bird of prey persecution in England last year, when fifteen goshawks, peregrines and buzzards were found poisoned or shot.

We’ve previously blogged about Josh’s innovative and successful Operation Wildnerness (see here, here, here, here and here) and it’s fantastic that his efforts have been recognised at the top police level. The word we’ve most often used to describe his work is ‘pro-active’, and his approach is even more impressive when you realise his role as a Police Wildlife Crime Officer is only part-time; something he has to fit in alongside his other policing duties.

Congratulations, Josh, on your very well-earned award! Hope you don’t mind that we’ve nicked your photo from Twitter!

Josh’s blog here

Crow traps: what you should know part 2

Following on from our earlier blog – Crow traps: what you should know part 1 (here)

The following information concerns the use of crow cage traps in Scotland; they are also used in other parts of the UK although the terms of use differ slightly (see here for information on their use in England, here for Wales and here for Northern Ireland).

What is a crow trap and why should we be concerned about them?

There are various types of animal traps in use in the countryside but the two we focus on in this article are the ‘ladder’ and ‘funnel’ crow cage traps. These are large, walk-in traps usually constructed with a wooden frame and wire mesh netting. A decoy bird (often a carrion crow but certain other decoy species are also permitted) is placed inside the trap to attract corvids or other target species. Birds that are attracted to the trap can enter via the roof, either through the horizontal slots of the ‘ladder’ or via a ‘funnel’. Once inside the trap it is virtually impossible for the birds to escape unaided. These trapped birds are usually destined to certain death at the hands of the trap operator who is legally authorised to kill them, subject to certain conditions (discussed in Part 3). In some rare circumstances, raptor workers deploy temporary crow cage traps to capture buzzards for marking projects, such as wing-tagging etc. Obviously these buzzards are released as soon as they’ve been marked; they aren’t killed by the trap operator!

There are many concerns surrounding the use of crow cage traps (some we’ll discuss below) but the over-riding concern is the indiscriminate nature of these traps, which means that species other than the target species can be, and often are, caught by gamekeepers, e.g. buzzards, goshawks, golden eagles etc. It is not illegal to (accidentally) trap these non-target species, but it is an offence for the trap operator not to release them, unharmed, at the earliest opportunity. More on this in Part 3.

Crow trap use is governed by a general licence, issued annually by Scottish Natural Heritage (see here). These licences are issued for the purpose of either (a) the conservation of wild birds, (b) to prevent serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables and fruit, and (c) to protect public health, public safety and prevent the spread of disease. Trap operators need not ‘apply’ for an individual licence, hence the name ‘general’ licence. Each general licence is subject to strict conditions (discussed in Part 3). If the trap operator complies with all the conditions of the general licence then the use of the crow trap is legal. However, in practice some of these conditions are ambiguous at best, and this is recognised by SNH who undertake regular consultations aimed at clarifying the terms of use (e.g. see here for their latest consultation plans).

Before we get in to the nitty gritty of how to recognise a legal trap from an illegal trap it’s worth mentioning that the RSPB (and other groups such as OneKind) has long campaigned for a more thorough review of the legal framework concerning these general licences for crow traps, particularly in relation to potential breaches of European legislation, including the EC Birds Directive. For anyone interested in the RSPB’s position, this document from 2007 (here) is informative.

Other concerns include the fact that there isn’t any effective monitoring of the impact these traps have on both target and non-target species. Crow traps are in use across Scotland year-round but are especially associated with upland grouse moors. It isn’t known exactly how many crow traps are in operation in Scotland but a conservative estimate would be in the hundreds, but probably nearer the thousands. There is currently no requirement for trap operators to record and/or report the number of target and non-target species caught and killed inside a trap (and even if there was such a requirement, who would believe the submitted figures? No gamekeeper is going to admit to illegally killing a protected species!). So how can the regulatory body (SNH) monitor the impact of crow trap use when they haven’t got a clue just how many traps are in use and how many birds and of what species are being killed each year? The follow-on question is, how can these general licences still be issued when the regulatory body cannot justify, in quantifiable terms, the need for lethal control measures?

Some may argue that there is now a record of the number of traps in use because recent changes to the general licences now require that a sign is attached to each trap with a unique identifying code issued by the local police force. However, this unique code is not assigned to an individual trap or to an individual trap operator, but rather to a landowner (or occupier) such as a sporting estate or a farm. This means that an estate owner can use the same code for multiple traps on his/her land (e.g. they may have just one trap or they may have 50+ traps depending on the size of the estate); the point is that the authorities do not have any means of knowing how many traps are in use on a particular estate because they only issue one code per estate.

From a law enforcement perspective, this use of a single identifying code for multiple traps makes it almost impossible to prosecute an individual for illegal use of the trap. For example, if a golden eagle is found dead inside a trap, and it’s obviously been there for a long time, then an offence has probably been committed (because traps must be checked at least once in every 24 hour period – see Part 3). Investigators may attend the scene but find that the trap is located on a large estate that employs multiple gamekeepers. None of the gamekeepers admit responsibility, so how does the investigator identify the individual responsible? A prosecution cannot commence unless an individual suspect is identified. It’s the same loophole we’ve seen used so many times when poisoned bait has been found on a large estate; nobody admits responsibility for laying the bait and thus the perpetrator(s) escape justice. It is only when the trap is located on a smaller estate where a single gamekeeper is employed that there is any chance of a prosecution.

Talking of loopholes….we’ve touched on this briefly in previous posts….in 2008 a new condition was added to the terms of use of the general licences. That new condition was that anyone who had a previous wildlife crime conviction was not allowed to use the general licence unless their conviction was considered ‘spent’, i.e. after five years from conviction. (Although even if you did have a recent conviction you could still apply for use of the licence and each case would be considered on merit, so it’s not quite the draconian condition that some imply). However, in 2009 the condition (of being banned for five years) was modified and we don’t recall any consultation about the insertion of this modification! The new modification says that you can still use the general licence if the sentence you received for your wildlife crime was an ‘admonishment’. Talk about a get-out clause! You might think this modification was quite reasonable, after all, an admonishment (effectively a telling off) is only given for minor offences, right? WRONG!!! Because there aren’t any mandatory sentences for wildlife crime offences in Scotland, a sheriff can choose a sentence at will (within the boundaries of sentencing limits at a Sheriff court, of course). In 2010, a sheriff imposed an admonishment on Graham Kerr, a gamekeeper on the Redmyre Estate, for possession of the banned pesticides Carbofuran and Alphachloralose (see here). The maximum penalty available was a £5000 fine and/or a six month prison term, reflecting the gravity of this type of offence. Had Kerr not also been handed a £400 fine for shooting a buzzard on the Redmyre Estate, his admonishment would have allowed him to continue using the general licence to operate a crow cage trap. In our opinion this is outrageous. What’s the point of having a condition of a five-year ban for a wildlife criminal if that condition is modified based on the whim of a sheriff’s sentencing choice rather than the nature of the actual criminal offence committed? It’s total nonsense. Why was this modification added to the terms of the general licence and who instigated its inclusion in 2009 and who approved it? Was anyone given the opportunity to object to its inclusion? Perhaps a Freedom of Information request is called for here…

This leads on to another concern…who is actually monitoring the trap operators? How do we know that someone with a recent criminal conviction (who was given a stronger sentence than an admonishment) is not still operating a crow cage trap? We know that many estates don’t sack their gamekeepers following a wildlife crime conviction, and we know of at least one estate where a previously convicted gamekeeper (guilty of raptor persecution) is now employed as a ‘gardener’!!

The potential for the misuse of crow traps is well known amongst raptor workers.  Previous reports on this issue have been produced by the RSPB (e.g. see here). Although this 2004 report is now fairly dated and some of the report’s recommendations have since been implemented, there is still a great deal of concern that crow traps are still being deliberately used to target raptor species, particularly buzzards and goshawks and in some areas, golden eagles.

So what can we do about it? In Part 3 we’ll explain the basics of what makes a crow cage trap legal, what makes one illegal, and the blurred line in between the two. We’ll also explain what members of the public should and shouldn’t do if you find a crow trap that you suspect is being operated illegally.