The BBC is reporting an attack on a peregrine site at a quarry in Staffordshire.
Someone tried to steal or kill three chicks at the site between Monday evening and Tuesday morning. Quarry staff found a rope above the nest site, and the three chicks were found scattered across the site. It’s understood all three are now safe. Police are investigating.
BBC news article here
Devon & Cornwall Police continue their impressive proactive stance against wildlife crime by today issuing a press release to warn the general public to be on the look out for poisoned birds and poisoned baits.
The alert has been issued to the local community in an area with a history of raptor poisoning, including previous attempts to poison peregrines. The public have been warned about the potentially fatal consequences of coming in to contact with the poisons used, and have been reassured that regular police patrols will be undertaken in the area.
We don’t see enough of this sort of proactive approach (although last year West Yorkshire Police did send out a public warning after poisoned bait was discovered – see here, as did Northern Constabulary, see here).
Once again, Police Wildlife Crime Officer PC Josh Marshall deserves huge plaudits for his efforts. Earlier this year Josh was behind a scheme to attach covert cameras at vulnerable raptor nest sites that resulted in catching two men disturbing a peregrine site within 48 hours of installing the equipment (see here). Somebody needs to get him and his enlightened bosses up to Scotland to provide training workshops for every single police force.
See here for the police poisoning alert.
The BBC is reporting that peregrine falcon chicks have been reported stolen from a nest site in Moniaive, Dumfries & Galloway, sometime between 25 May and 5 June.
An un-named police spokesman has appealed for information and said the force was committed to fighting wildlife crime, although the appeal for information doesn’t seem to have yet reached the Dumfries & Galloway Constabulary’s website…
BBC news article here
Back in March we blogged about the activities of Police Wildlife Crime Officer Josh Marshall, who had been installing covert cameras at active raptor nest sites in Devon in a pro-active effort to deter/catch would-be wildlife crime offenders. Within 48 hours, two suspicious characters were caught on camera visiting an active peregrine site (see here).
Today, PC Marshall has announced that the two men have both received police cautions and were issued with ‘strong words of advice’ (see here).
Well done Josh, keep up the good work!
Yesterday we blogged about the availability of the written evidence submitted to the UK parliament’s audit on wildlife crime (see here).
Today we’ve read all the written evidence and our expectations of who might have said what were fully met. Although there’s no substitute for reading things for yourself and drawing your own conclusions, there were a few things that stood out…
One common theme was the use of RSPB vs NWCU (National Wildlife Crime Unit) raptor persecution statistics, with groups such as the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation and the Moorland Association claiming that only the NWCU figures should be used to determine the ‘true scale’ of the problem. The Countryside Alliance goes one step further and says that it objects to what it calls ‘scene-of-the-crime involvement of third party campaigning organisations and charities such as the RSPB’ and calls for urgent guidance to clarify ‘that all crimes and suspected crimes should be reported to the police’. No great surprises there – it’s the usual knee-jerk reaction to the RSPB, but what is interesting is that they forgot to mention just how unrepresentative the NWCU figures actually are! Why are they unrepresentative? Well according to the written evidence of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPOS), not all police forces submit their wildlife crime data to the NWCU, and even if data have been submitted, it’s not always possible to identify which incidents were wildlife crimes as they are not allocated to a specific code! So yes, it is easy to see why these groups want to get rid of the RSPB stats and replace them with the NWCU figures!
Another point of interest was a statement from the Moorland Association on hen harriers. We thought the second paragraph contained particularly sinister undertones:
“The scale of crime against the hen harrier and its impact on the hen harrier population has been overstated and is misleading. A lack of breeding success on grouse moors does not automatically mean that laws have been broken. There are many, many more birds in England than four successfully nesting pairs, which can be seen over grouse moor during migration and at winter roost sites.
Until a full set of special rules allowing the positive management of hen harriers breeding on grouse moors is forthcoming from the Environment Council’s Hen Harrier Dialogue, moorland owners are within their rights and the law to deter the birds from settling on their moors to breed.”
We assume that ‘positive management’ in this context refers to either killing or otherwise removing (translocating) any harriers that are considered ‘surplus’ to an agreed acceptable number (known as a ‘ceiling’). We understand that the Environment Council is seriously considering a ‘ceiling’ on hen harrier numbers for grouse moors; a controversial and long-running argument that we’ll write about another time. But what does the Moorland Association mean when it says ‘moorland owners are within their rights and the law to deter birds from settling on their moors to breed’?
The other comment we found particularly interesting was one made by the Countryside Alliance:
“The recent publication of out of date research into the breeding success of peregrine falcons on grouse moors is a further example of counterproductive allegations against shooting which resulted in misleading coverage in the media. As a result of this, the National Wildlife Crime Unit circulated a clarification to all Police Wildlife Crime Officers in the UK, and to all Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime members, in which it was drawn to the attention of those studying the research paper that the data used was out of date, and that in using such information there was a clear danger that the research paper might be misunderstood as representing the current situation, which it did not.”
The publication being referred to is the recent paper by Amar et al (2011) which showed that the breeding productivity of peregrines nesting on grouse moors in Northern England was 50% lower than the productivity of peregrines breeding on non-grouse moors (see here for earlier blog on this). Now, why would the NWCU feel it necessary to send an email to wildlife crime police officers and other PAW partners about how to interpret this paper? Did they think that these people were so stupid that they couldn’t read and understand the paper for themselves? Why did the NWCU think that the data used in the paper (collected between 1980-2006 from 141 nesting ranges) were unrepresentative of the current situation? Has the NWCU collected and analysed more recent data to demonstrate that the current situation is different? How does sending this email fit in with the NWCU’s stated primary role of ‘assisting in the prevention and detection of wildlife crime’? What sort of message does this email give to those involved with the fight against raptor persecution? Here is a peer-reviewed scientific publication in a prestigious journal that points directly to the significant relationship between grouse moors and raptor persecution. Isn’t this exactly the sort of publication that the NWCU’s Charlie Everitt was referring to in his speech at the recent wildlife crime conference when he said: “We’ve also been looking to the use of science to try and benefit from what science can deliver to us”?
The thing is that the data used in the paper were part of a long-term data set that clearly showed a trend in poor productivity (i.e. not a snap shot but a long-term picture over 26 years), and this trend also mirrored that of other studies that have shown a clear relationship between low raptor survival and grouse moors (go and read some of the golden eagle papers that have been produced over the last ten years). The NWCU appear to have missed this point in their scrabble to appease the grouse-shooting lobby; so much for their intelligence-led approach to combating raptor persecution, eh?
All the written evidence submitted to the audit committee so far can be read here.
A proactive police and RSPB crackdown on wildlife crime in Devon & Cornwall, called Operation Wilderness, has had its first success after two men were filmed visiting an active peregrine nest site without the appropriate licences.
The men were caught on film just 48 hours after a covert camera had been installed at the site. Police were able to identify them from the camera images and the two men, aged 44 and 43, were found to be in possession of a camera containing images of the peregrine nest site. Both men have been released pending further enquiries.
Full details available on Devon Police Wildlife Crime Officer Josh Marshall’s blog here
Well done Josh and all involved – excellent work! For more information about why Operation Wilderness was launched, see earlier blog post here.
The Scottish Government has today published the 2011 poisoning map (otherwise known as Scotland’s map of shame).
The newspapers are heralding the figures as a success story, as the numbers show an apparent drop in poisoning incidents (“only [only??!] 16 raptors were killed as a result of being illegally poisoned in Scotland – 12 fewer than in 2010 and the lowest death toll since the first maps were published six years ago“, says The Scotsman). The victims included seven buzzards, four red kites, two peregrines, two sparrowhawks and a golden eagle.
On a superficial level this does look like convincing progress, but let’s scratch the surface and see what’s underneath…
The official Scottish government poisoning map only shows the places where poisoned birds were discovered. Given the remote areas involved and the fact that most of these poisoned birds were found by chance (by passing hillwalkers etc.), the official figures can in no way represent the actual number of raptors that were poisoned (but undetected) during 2011.
The figures behind the map also do not show the areas where poisoned baits (but no dead birds) were discovered during 2011. Nor do they show the other incidents of raptor persecution that were discovered during 2011, including shooting, trapping and nest destruction incidents. According to an article in today’s Guardian, it is claimed that last year’s illegal shooting, trapping and nest destruction incidents “have remained constant with previous years“. We’ll have to wait a good few months for the RSPB Birdcrime Report to see the actual figures. (Incidentally, how come the 2011 poisoning figures, as compiled by SASA, have not yet been released to the public? They’re obviously available as they were used to construct the poisoning map. So far they’ve only published data up to September 2011. Isn’t it in the public interest to release them? Why all the secrecy?).
It seems plausible that some shooting estates are doing their best to distance themselves from any sign of illegal raptor persecution, especially in light of the new law on vicarious liability. A likely example of this behaviour was an incident in the Borders in September 2011. A dog walker discovered a bag full of dead raptors by the side of the busy A68 road (see here for earlier blog on this). The police were alerted and the birds were sent to SASA for toxicology tests. The results showed that the two sparrowhawks and two buzzards had been poisoned with the banned pesticide Carbofuran. Because the dead birds had been dumped away from any shooting estate or farm, without being seen, it was virtually impossible for the police to prosecute anyone (SASA reports that the police have now closed the case due to a lack of positive leads – see here). What is the probablity that other estates up and down the country are poisoning raptors on their land and then removing the evidence as far from their location as possible? It was pure chance that this bag of poisoned raptors was discovered. How many more are left rotting and undiscovered across the country?
But let’s suppose, just for a minute, that the latest map IS an accurate representation of all raptor poisoning incidents that took place in 2011. Should we then accept that shooting estates are cleaning up their act and they’ve all suddenly decided, after over 100 years of persecution, that raptors are actually ok and shouldn’t be killed? The only way to measure that will be to look at LONG-TERM TRENDS of poisoning incidents as well as LONG-TERM TRENDS of raptor populations. We’ve blogged about this before (see here) but it’s worth repeating some of it to show the bigger picture. The graph (adapted from the RSPB’s excellent report: The Illegal Killing of Birds of Prey in Scotland in 2010, see here) shows the long-term trend of poisoning incidents in Scotland from 1989-2010. Look carefully at the graph and you’ll see peaks and troughs in the numbers recorded. Yes, there certainly have been previous drops in the number of poisoning incidents, but then look what happened in the following years – another increase, and then another drop, then another increase etc. Before the game-shooting lobby starts its self-congratulatory back-slapping, we need to see a continuous decline in the number of recorded incidents, AND we need to see raptor populations recovering in those areas where persecution has been endemic. This will take time, but could arguably be judged in about five years’ time.
Of course we all hope that the 2011 figures are the start of a new era in raptor conservation in Scotland. As Environment Minister Stewart Stevenson has said in today’s media: “I hope this proves to be the beginning of a continuing reduction in such cases, leading to the end of this outdated, dangerous and cruel practice“. It is notable that his statement contains more than a hint of caution. That man’s no fool.
See an excellent article about the latest figures in today’s Guardian here
Article in The Scotsman here
In a bid to tackle increasing levels of wildlife crime, Devon & Cornwall Police have teamed up with the RSPB to launch ‘Operation Wilderness’, a new scheme that will see 24 hr nest cameras installed at vulnerable sites across the region.
This is a proactive response to the spate of raptor persecution incidents last year, which included the illegal poisoning (with Carbofuran) of four goshawks and a buzzard (see here) and three peregrines (see here and here). There is also concern about egg collectors and pigeon fanciers in the area.
The cameras have been paid for by the Devon Bird Watching and Preservation Society, and Operation Wilderness is being led by Police Wildlife Crime Officer PC Josh Marshall.
Well done to everyone involved – this is an impressive joint effort.
BBC news article here
Following earlier posts about four-times jailed egg thief Matthew Gonshaw (see here and here), his ASBO hearing was finally heard at Stratford Magistrates’ Court, London, on Friday (24 February).
In perhaps one of the most creative choices of punishment, in addition to his earlier six-month prison sentence, Gonshaw was given an ASBO (anti-social behaviour order) that bans him from coming to Scotland during the bird nesting season (1 Feb – 31 Aug) for the next ten years. Ten years is the maximum ASBO term, and if he breaks the conditions, he could receive a £20,000 fine and a five-year jail term. Gonshaw is further prevented from visiting all RSPB and Wildlife Trust land for the next ten years – presumably this means in England and Wales.
Strangely though, Ian Thomson of RSPB Scotland is quoted in The Herald as saying, “Gonshaw is, in fact, due to appear at Inverness Sheriff Court on March 8 facing charges relating to the theft of wild birds’ eggs in Scotland only last year“. It’s not clear how he can appear at Inverness in March if he’s now banned from travelling to Scotland until 1 Sept at the earliest. Ah well, not our problem.
Well done to everyone involved and especially the smart person who thought about trying for an ASBO and the magistrate who agreed to its use.
Article in The Herald here
Four-times jailed egg thief Matthew Gonshaw was due to find out last Friday (17 February) whether he was to be the subject of an Anti-Social Behaviour Order (ASBO) following his latest conviction for egg-collecting (see here for background). If granted, the ASBO could see him facing a £20,000 fine and five years in prison for further offences.
The case was adjourned and is now due to be heard this Friday (24 February).
