Environment Minister answers PQs on poisoning & vicarious liability

Claire Baker MSPClaire Baker MSP has been asking some more pertinent parliamentary questions….

Question S4W-13709: Claire Baker, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 14/03/2013

To ask the Scottish Government how many (a) investigations, (b) arrests and (c) convictions there have been for the offence of vicarious liability under the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011.

Answered by Paul Wheelhouse (26/03/2013): Since the vicarious liability provisions in the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 came into force on 1 January 2012 there have been no arrests, prosecutions or convictions of people for vicarious liability for relevant offences. Vicarious liability is not in itself an offence, but rather a land owner or manager may be held to be vicariously liable for relevant offences as set out in Section 18, Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981). The relevant offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 are those in:

Section 1(1), (5) or (5B)

Section 5(1) (a) or (b)

Section 15A (1)

These offences are in relation to the intentional or reckless killing, injuring of a wild bird or the damage to, or destruction of a nest or egg(s); the prohibition of certain methods of killing wild birds (e.g. by the use of traps or poisons); and the possession of certain prescribed pesticides.

Vicarious liability can be considered in relation to all relevant offences that are investigated or prosecuted. When any investigation for a relevant offence is ongoing, the possibility of an arrest or prosecution under the vicarious liability provisions will be considered.

Question S4W-13710: Claire Baker, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 14/03/2013

To ask the Scottish Government how many poisoned baits have been discovered and how many (a) birds and (b) other animals have been poisoned in this way since 2008, broken down by (i) year and (ii) species.

Answered by Paul Wheelhouse (27/03/2013): The available information on poisoned baits and the poisoning of birds and other animals is shown in the following table.

Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture, collate and publish data on animal poisonings information on a quarterly and annual basis on their website.

RPS_poisoned birds 2008-12

RPS_other poisoned animals 2008-12

RPS_poison incidents & baits 2008-2012

We’re still waiting for the Environment Minister to issue a statement on his intended course of action following the reports of two buzzards, shot and killed in two separate incidents before Easter…..

 

New Scottish snaring laws may help catch the raptor killers

Yesterday (1 April 2013) saw the new Scottish snaring laws take effect, under The Snares (Identification Numbers and Tags) (Scotland) Order 2012.

plastic_snare_tags2 Perdix Wildlife SuppliesUnder this new legislation (see here for a copy), snare operators have to abide by the following rules:

  • They must have attended and passed an approved training course.
  • They must have been issued with a personal identification number by the police.
  • A tag (plastic or metal) with this personal identification number must be attached to every single snare they set, along with the letter ‘F’, ‘R’ or ‘BH’ to indicate the target species they intend to catch (Fox, Rabbit or Brown Hare). Interestingly, there is not a code for Mountain Hare – suggesting that it is still illegal to snare this species, despite the verdict in the recent Lochindorb hare-snare trial (see here). See image for an example of one of the new tags, created by Perdix Wildlife Supplies, showing the target species (BH) and the personal ID number.
  • They must keep a record of every snare set, including its location, date set, date disarmed, and every animal they have caught in that snare. These records must be maintained for two years and given over to a police officer if requested.

They must also abide by previous legislation and use only free-running snares with a stop on them (not self-locking snares which are banned), check every snare at least once every 24 hours, and on each inspection they must remove any trapped animal, whether alive or dead. Snares cannot be set where an animal is likely to become suspended (e.g. next to a fence) or close to water where a snared animal is likely to drown.

The game-shooting lobby are nervous about the new regulations. Although many of the industry’s organisations have welcomed the new restrictions, there is obvious concern that not everyone will comply and this could well lead to an outright ban on snaring when the effect of the new legislation is reviewed by the Scottish Parliament in December 2016.

They are right to be concerned. We already know that as of February this year, out of a shooting industry estimate of 5000 snare operators, only 1,376 have attended one of the approved snaring training courses (see here). That means 3,624 people have not been trained – if they’re still setting snares they will be doing so illegally.

Modern Gamekeeping, the monthly gamekeepers’ rag, has warned readers to ‘Beware spies in the hills’. They claim anti-fieldsport campaigners will be out “looking for trouble”. It’s not just the anti-fieldsports crowd who’ll be looking – it’ll be everyone who cares about the way our wildlife is ‘managed’ on sporting estates, whether they be anti-fieldsports or not. In the same article, the SGA’s Bert Burnett warns about the SSPCA, who he says are “very proactive in trying to find problems”. Surely he meant very proactive in trying to bring to justice wildlife criminals who cause unnecessary suffering to animals?

Of course, the new legislation will only be effective if it’s properly enforced. If you’re out and about and you find a snare that doesn’t meet the new requirements, you need to report it immediately. You can try the police, although whether you’ll get an appropriate response depends on who answers the phone. Some wildlife crime officers are very clued-up and will be aware of the legislation – others will not. A quote from the Modern Gamekeeping article gives a clear example of this problem:

One keeper told Modern Gamekeeping he had rung his local police every few weeks since November [to apply for his personal identification number], only to speak to receptionists who didn’t know what a snare was. He said: “Some of the policemen I have spoken to have told me that snaring is banned altogether and others have told me it is an issue for the council to deal with. When I rang the council, the woman was utterly horrified at the idea. It really has been a total hash””.

This photo (below) shows a decomposing mountain hare found in a snare on a notorious Scottish grouse moor. It was reported to the police – no action was taken.

slry30

If you don’t want to rely upon the police to follow up on your report, please call the SSPCA (03000-999-999), especially if you find a live animal caught in a snare, whether it be a target species or not. Another excellent place to report your findings is OneKind’s Snarewatch website (here), which not only has a reporting facility but also is an excellent source of background information about snaring in Scotland. For snaring information in England, this website is very useful.

These new snaring regulations are of interest to us, not only for their intrinsic value but particularly because we believe they could be used to close an often-used legal loophole that has prevented the prosecution of many suspected raptor killers employed on large game-shooting estates.

The loophole we’re referring to concerns the inability of investigators to identify a potential individual suspect, especially on large estates, where gangs of gamekeepers all close ranks and deny having responsibility for an individual ‘beat’, where, for example, a poisoned raptor may have turned up. This scenario has happened time and time again and has prevented many a prosecution from taking place, because charges can only be brought if the individual responsible has been identified. Here’s how it often goes:

(i) A poisoned raptor is found on an estate, maybe close to a poisoned bait, maybe not.

(ii) The investigators turn up on the estate and conduct a search.

(iii) Traces of poison are found on game bags, on knives, in vehicles etc.

(iv) The investigators ask which gamekeeper is responsible for the specific area where the bird was found (i.e. who runs this ‘beat’?).

(v) All the gamekeepers on the estate claim they don’t have individual beats. They all cover the same ground, use the same game bags, knives, vehicles etc, and nobody knows anything about any poison.

(vi) The investigators have to leave empty handed and nobody is brought to justice for poisoning the bird.

So how can the new snaring regulations be of help? We think that the issue of a personal identification number is key. Unlike the number issued for crow cage traps, which is given to the ‘estate’ rather than to an individual, this snare number is issued to the actual individual person who operates the snare. The number has to be attached to each and every snare that that person sets. So, if a poisoned raptor (or any other evidence of criminality) turns up on a specific beat, investigators can search for snares that have been set in the vicinity to identify the individual gamekeeper who runs that beat.

Perhaps the estate owners are wise to this already, and perhaps they’ll ask their gamekeepers to mix up their snares so that a single individual cannot be identified as being responsible for a particular area. But by doing so they’ll decrease the efficiency of their workforce (and efficiency is what they’re all about) because those keepers, being responsible for their own snares, will have to be zig-zagging across great swathes of moorland in order to check their snares, rather than focusing on a more compact area where they know every nook and cranny and use that knowledge to their advantage when targeting animals they want to kill.

We will be watching with interest to see how things develop.

2013 wildlife crime conference: Duncan Orr-Ewing, RSPB

This is the third blog in our series about the 2013 Scottish Police Wildlife Crime conference. (NB: these are not being produced in the order the presentations were made at the conference). Here’s what Duncan Orr-Ewing of RSPB Scotland had to say on the topic of raptor persecution:

“Good morning everybody, I think most of you know me here, but my name is Duncan Orr-Ewing, I’m Head of Species and Land Management at RSPB Scotland, based in Edinburgh. My talk today, what I plan to do is give a bit of an outline of the issue if you like, then cover some of the sort of on-going work that is underway to try and address the problems, and then take a bit of a forward view if you like, on what the next steps might be. I should probably also confess at this point that I’m also a Director of the Langholm Demonstration Project, which Simon’s just talked about. I’m not planning to talk a lot about that but obviously as a science-based organisation the RSPB is heavily involved with that and a range of other scientific projects to try and identify solutions to some of the issues on-going in this area. I should also say, just briefly at the outset, as a science-based organisation our focus is on the conservation of raptors, we’re informed by the science, our focus is on raptor populations. We are not opposed to hunting as an organisation provided it’s carried out sustainably and legally.

Taking us back to the beginning, I think the advent of the Scottish Parliament has seen political unity break out on this issue, and I’m minded to remind you all of Donald Dewar’s statement that the persecution of birds of prey in Scotland is a national disgrace, and subsequent Environment Ministers of all political persuasions that we’ve had in power in Scotland have also pretty well taken this sort of line. This is not a political issue, this is a significant conservation issue. The RSPB is involved with this because it is a conservation issue and we’re rightly standing up for the interests of raptors. And I would also remind you at this stage that there are no enlightened countries, shall we say, in the world, that I think I can point to, where people are allowed to illegally, or, in most cases I would also say, legally kill raptors. They’re rightly protected as I’ll come on to say.

So just talking about some of the issues, this is the Skibo Estate in Sutherland taking you back a few years, in the foreground you’ll see one of three golden eagles that were found poisoned on that estate. Why should we be concerned about this? This incident, in itself, has probably resulted in a set-back for that local golden eagle population for many many years to come, that one incident. So the question we ask ourselves here is, why has this been allowed to happen? The individuals that have been involved with this, why are they involved with the hunting industry? Why haven’t they been removed by the hunting industry? Why haven’t they been marginalised? Instead, we see some of these people held up as exemplars of best practice, in particularly in the grouse moor industry, and that is very disappointing and I think that has to be addressed.

I’ll also remind you that raptors are not just important as the Minister said, on their own volition, in their own right, they’re also important because they’re important to local economies. Need I say the story of the sea eagle, a reintroduced species, its value to the local Mull economy – £5 million per annum. People come to Scotland to see our environment, they’re attracted to seeing some of these iconic species that we have here, the sea eagle is one of those.

Another example, and there are examples across the whole of Scotland, the length and breadth of Scotland, the Galloway Kite Trail, also bringing in hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to a local Dumfries & Galloway economy. And some of these benefits that come from raptor conservation, supported it has to be said by local estates and enlightened land owners, they are now very important to the economies of some of our most rural areas in Scotland.

So why are raptors protected? And this is a very fundamental point which informs very much how we think about this issue. Firstly, they’re long-lived birds with slow reproductive rates, so illegal killing can be highly detrimental to their populations. Scotland also has a particularly poor history in conserving our raptor species. We have had national extinctions, I mean even birds like the buzzards, because of what we did two centuries ago, were driven to the edge of what should be their former range and only now are some of these species recovering their populations, and indeed, some have had to be reintroduced by humans with the support of local land owners because they were driven to extinction, and the red kite and the sea eagle being those. And we still, I’m afraid, based on some of this history, still have a prejudice in the UK and Scotland towards predators, and this isn’t just raptors, this is all sorts of predators, you know, big cats, wild cats, pine martens, otters, badgers, there is prejudice against these species as well, which persists in some places.

So I want to touch now just on what the impact of illegal killing has on three raptor species and I’m taking the golden eagle, hen harrier and red kite as examples, and we now have a very good body of science to support these assertions.

Conservation status of the golden eagle in ScotlandSo I’m referring here to the SNH Golden Eagle Framework, and here the red areas that are on the map show the areas in Scotland where the golden eagle population is considered to be in unfavourable conservation status. And overlaid on that map are the incidents of illegal persecution, poisoning incidents, between 2006 and 2012. And you’ll see there’s a strong coincidence with illegal persecution of golden eagle poisoning in this case and where the bird is in unfavourable conservation status. And in 2012 alone, I’ll just highlight three cases of crime against golden eagles that were detected: one in the far north west of Scotland, one in the Angus area and the other in Dumfries & Galloway/Strathclyde border. And every time one of these cases happens, I would say, you know, the trust that should be there between land managers and conservationists takes a step back.

With hen harrier I take you back to 2000 and a case in Strathspey in Morayshire, and here was a case of a gamekeeper shooting a hen harrier at the nest, successfully convicted for this, and I’m afraid that this was the first successful conviction of a gamekeeper for killing a hen harrier, although this is considered to be widespread practice, and I’ve put this in really just to show how difficult it is to secure convictions in this kind of case because these cases occur in remote areas, in this case on a grouse moor, you know, far away from public roads, it is difficult to get access and bring these people to justice but in this case we were successful in doing that and subsequently there have also been a couple of other successful convictions. But we think this is still widespread practice, and following on from the Joint Raptor Study than Simon mentioned earlier, we do know that that resulted in an escalation of crime against hen harriers because people saw that hen harriers were blamed for suppressing grouse populations and as a result people saw justification for taking the law into their own hands. And in 2010, as a result of this, we’ve just carried out a national population survey with the Raptor Study Groups and others, into hen harriers, we have a national population decline of 20% in hen harriers. And if I tell you that on grouse moors, driven grouse moors in the UK, we only have five breeding pairs of hen harriers, and as many of you will know the hen harrier is on the verge of extinction in England as a result of human persecution. Other work that has been done by people in this room actually and GWCT and others has shown that there is room for 500 breeding pairs of hen harriers on driven grouse moors in the UK, so their population is being suppressed  and they are at very low levels. And I’ve just put this in to show that this is a species that isn’t affected really by illegal poisoning – most of the impacts on hen harriers are either by direct nest destruction, or in this case, illegal trapping. You can see a male hen harrier there, caught in a leg-hold trap.

red kite 12And red kite, a species which I have a fair bit of involvement with myself, again we’re in a unique situation here where we have an almost totally marked population of birds, because the bird was reintroduced, all the birds that were released were wing-tagged and we know the fate of these birds because we’ve been radio-tracking them and recording all the wing tag data. And we’re also in a position where we’re able to compare between two reintroduction areas so in the south of England, in the Chilterns, there was a similar reintroduction and we released the same number of birds, about 90 birds were released, also 90 birds in north Scotland and the population in 2006 of red kites in the Chilterns area, with similar productivity, same number of young produced compared roughly to north Scotland is over 300 pairs whereas in north Scotland the population has bubbled along and has stayed pretty well static at about 50 breeding pairs. Indeed the Chilterns population this year is nearly 1,000 breeding pairs whereas the north Scotland population is still stuck below 60 breeding pairs. And the main difference between these rates of growth is explained by the prevailing levels of illegal poisoning in the two countries, i.e. we have far higher levels of illegal poisoning. And last time I was here speaking to you was about red kites and I reported that since reintroduction we’d found 50 kites that had been confirmed as being illegally poisoned since reintroduction began in 1989 and that figure is now 75 in Scotland. And where is this happening? There is a strong coincidence, illegal activity in the east of Scotland in the areas shaded, which are grouse moors, hence the work we’re doing at Langholm and elsewhere to try and find some solutions to this problem. And increasingly it is looking like the driven grouse moor areas are the problem areas to focus on.

The big concern if you like with the driven grouse shooting set-up these days is that this sport seems to be moving into a new, more intensive phase. So over the past 10-15 years we’ve seen land management systems that have been employed for England for quite a number of years, coming up to Scotland, means more intensive management, more keepers, more predator control, killing as you’re aware of hares and deer tick hosts, increased burning, and we’ve mapped this and we know that there is a strong coincidence where this intensive management is coming in there is a prevalence also of illegal raptor persecution. And I would see this very much as the problem area to focus on in the forthcoming years. There have been some very notorious cases of course, that have occurred in these places where this intensification of management has taken place, in this case ‘Alma’, a golden eagle being radio-tracked and being found dead in the Angus glens a few years ago, illegally poisoned.

So is the situation improving? I think the answer is yes in some places, and this is a map of BTO data on the breeding bird survey buzzard trend, and you will see that the buzzard population, as many of you will know, has increased quite rapidly in recent years but now it’s plateau-ed off as you’d expect and we have a largely stable buzzard population but this species is still absent from some areas of its former range but I think the next breeding bird atlas, coordinated by BTO, will show that the buzzard has recovered large areas of its former range, which is good progress.

Earlier today we were talking about the illegal poisoning incidents in Scotland. This is a bar chart showing the number of reported poisoning incidents over the years since 1989, and as the Minister mentioned, over the past couple of years we have seen a significant decline in illegal poisoning and that is again very good progress. We would say this is informed by a few things perhaps as background which have helped us get to where we are today and this is work in progress, there’s no room for complacency here and we will work with Scottish Land and Estates and others to make sure that we continue to bear down on this problem.

AlmaBut the high point [on the graph] in 2009 was when Alma, the eagle that I mentioned earlier, was found poisoned. We also had a case, the Skibo case also mentioned earlier, a seizure of 10kg of Carbofuran, one of the poisons most implicated in illegal poisoning. And then again, 2011, another satellite-tagged eagle found poisoned. And of course the introduction of vicarious liability making land owners more responsible for the actions of their employees. These welcome steps, apart from the poisonings of course, are helping to move the situation onwards but as I say, we’re not complacent and we will continue to work with partners in the Partnership Against Wildlife Crime to bear down on this problem. What we’ve learned through poisoning hopefully will transfer to other types of raptor crime in due course.

Ok, this is just to remind you also that there are quite a large number of birds that have been killed since 1989 through illegal poisoning – 930 birds and animals have been discovered poisoned and hopefully in the future we can make a dent in that situation. Ultimately, consign illegal poisoning to history, that’s what we want to do.

But also worth mentioning that birds of prey are killed in other ways, they’re shot, trapped or have their nests destroyed and we need to start progressing that as well, as was stated earlier.

So what are the solutions? As we’ve heard earlier, we’re developing legal alternatives to killing birds of prey, and diversionary feeding is one such method, which in the case of the hen harrier has been shown to be pretty effective and we hope over the next few years the grouse moor sector will start adopting this technique and rolling it out across driven grouse moors across Scotland and perhaps even in the north of England. These are legal techniques to solve problems.

I think we also need a model of how grouse moors can be managed more sustainably. It’s not acceptable that this continued intensification occurs and the people that are involved with it are held up as exemplars of best practice if that involves illegal activity. We need a model that fits more with 21st century public expectations and is not predicated on ever-increasing grouse bags. Some of the moors which we see now have the highest grouse bags they’ve had for many years. You would think there would be room for raptors there. They also don’t have the grouse cycle that they used to have because we have medicated grit and other methods developed by GWCT to prevent that from happening. So why can’t these places tolerate raptors? Many of the grouse moors that we’re talking about here don’t have any breeding raptors, let alone hen harriers and eagles, they are black holes for raptors. But we also need more land owners and their employees to work with the police and marginalise those who undermine other good practice and that is happening to a large extent now, through PAW and the work of Scottish Land and Estates and others and we very much welcome that.

And of course there has to be a deterrent out there and that includes effectively robust policing, enforcement, to deal with those serious incidents when they occur.

And I throw this open, but do we need more regulation of the sporting industry? It was discussed last time, the Wildlife and Natural Environment (WANE) Act went through the Scottish Parliament. We have one of the most unregulated shooting industry anywhere in the world. Does this contribute to this problem? In Germany, North America, Scandinavia, other countries, they have quite an established system of regulation for hunting.

But what it’s all about for us, and we will measure success of all of these actions, is through improved populations of the key species, in this case goshawks, ospreys, hen harriers. That is how we will measure progress. But this will be delivered through a range of partnership arrangements as well. It’s easy to knock these partnership arrangements but they are important. They build trust, they build dialogue and in Scotland as a small country of only 5 million people we have good communication between most of the key players here, and that can only help us move this along.

I’m delighted that Scottish Land and Estates are developing their Wildlife Estates initiative; some RSPB staff are involved with helping develop this and we will help Scottish Land and Estates encourage those good land owners who want to do the right thing as we move forward with that programme.

The Langholm Demonstration Project, I won’t dwell on that in detail because Simon’s covered a lot of it – a very important project. This is the model for sustainable grouse moor management going forward. Many of you  may not see that, and Simon said, it’s not without problems, the project, but we’re working our way through those problems as partners, and this less intensive approach to grouse moor management, within the law, with protected raptor species, has to be the way forward, and a combination of hunting and conservation occurs.

And of course I should mention the Partnership Against Wildlife Crime, which over the past few years has really developed into a solid partnership and we’re all working together in the same direction. Thank you very much”.

Pets killed by the bird poisoners

poisonThere’s an article in the Express today talking about pets that have been poisoned by gamekeepers (see here). According to the article, ‘new figures show 60 dogs and 28 cats have been poisoned in the last decade’. Unfortunately, the article doesn’t tell us who published these ‘new figures’ or on what evidence they’re based.

We do know that pets are poisoned, snared, shot etc by gamekeepers because we’ve read the stories in the newspapers and seen the toxicology reports –  we just aren’t sure about the accuracy of these ‘new figures’.

The article goes on to say, ‘over the past decade more than 250 protected birds such as golden and white-tailed eagles, peregrine falcons, red kites and buzzards have died and there are fears a child could fall victim if they touch the bait’. This figure, we know, is definitely an underestimate of the number of raptors poisoned over the last decade.

The main thrust of the article is based around last week’s news that the UK government has decided to ignore the Environmental Audit Committee’s recommendations for addressing wildlife crime (see here) and how the Opposition are now slagging them off for it.

If you think gamekeepers should be held accountable for what they get up, please sign this e-petition: HERE.

Red kite poisoned, 20 months after its mother suffered the same fate

Poisoned kite photo Marc RuddockA young red kite has been poisoned in County Wicklow in the Republic of Ireland, 20 months after its mother was killed the same way.

The young bird was found in January and tests have confirmed it had been poisoned with both Carbofuran and Alphacloralose – the first time both chemicals have been found in an Irish kite. It’s mother was poisoned with Alphachloralose in December 2011.

The Golden Eagle Trust (the group behind the reintroduction of golden eagles, white-tailed eagles and red kites in the Irish Republic) described the poisoning of two generations of a red kite family as “totally devastating”.

The latest bird (Blue White 21) is the first of 21 Irish-born kites to be poisoned. It was found by a member of the public close to the golf club in the town. The bird was still alive but died shortly afterwards.

News article from Golden Eagle Trust here

News article in the Irish Independent here

2013 wildlife crime conference: Paul Wheelhouse, Environment minister

The 2013 Scottish Police Wildlife Crime conference took place last Thursday (14th March). Many of this year’s presentations were once again directly relevant to raptor persecution and we’ll be commenting on these in due course.

To start off this year’s blog series, here are excerpts from the Environment Minister’s speech. He started by thanking the organisers etc before moving onto the meaty stuff:

“We’re now more than a year on since the passing of the Wildlife & Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 and my predecessor, Stewart Stevenson, stood here last year and, amongst other things, talked about the new vicarious liability provisions. Now, we’ve not seen any prosecutions under the vicarious liability yet; I think it remains very likely that circumstances will arise in the future when these provisions can be brought into play and we will all be very interested to see how they work out in court.

In the meantime though, I am certain that whilst persecution of wild birds does exist in parts of our countryside, this change in the law has already had a deterrent effect as responsible land managers take a close look at management practices and training for employees and contractors. As Stewart said last year, we’ve never been out to get prosecutions; we just want to see an end to these criminal acts. However, if a conviction is what it takes to make those breaking the law stop, take notice and address their behaviour, then so be it. I shall be keeping an eye on this particular area with interest. A true test of course may be when we see raptors in all areas that should be their natural habitat and a disappearance of these ‘not spots’.

So what’s coming up in 2013? Legislative changes my team of policy officials have been working on which are of relevance to the conference include provisions relating to snaring, and invasive non-native species, and you will be hearing more from Catherine Murdoch about non-native species later today, and Kenny Wilmott from BASC will be talking about the importance of keeping up to date in relation to the use of snares and traps.

2013 will also see the publication of the first government report into wildlife crime. Policy officials are currently working on this and I’m sure it will make for an interesting read and it will no doubt provide a focal point to drive forward the debate on what is a very important topic. What we are looking to achieve with this report is an idea of what wildlife crime in Scotland looks like overall, the big picture if you will. This will not be easy because it’s the first report, there’ll be nothing to compare it with. However, like poisoning maps, once we have a few reports published we will hopefully start to see trends and pictures emerge. It will also be a challenge to compare data from all of the different agencies such as the police, National Wildlife Crime Unit, the Crown Office and the Scottish Government Justice Department. However challenging that may be, it is an extremely worthwhile cause. And unfortunately crimes and any resulting prosecutions don’t fall neatly into calendar years. They also are not always recorded in a manner which allows for obvious interpretation of the charges. So for example, where there is more than one charge, which so often occurs in the lesser charges of wildlife crimes, then the main charge is usually what appears in the records. We’ll therefore be looking to present the data as simply as possible, but with a view to ensuring any comparisons are meaningful, if indeed that is possible. And I’m looking forward to the publication of this report to act as a standard we can use going forward. I will leave the experts to talk to you about the legislative changes across the rest of today, however should you fancy a chat with a policy official over a sausage roll at lunch, please feel free to collar any one of them.

I’d like now to turn to the annual raptor poisoning maps which were published this morning. These maps generate significant media interest and many of you will already have seen the figures. There has been a major drop in confirmed incident numbers recorded for 2012 and this must be welcomed in the warmest possible terms. Whilst any poisoning is unacceptable, the fact that just three birds were confirmed poisoned in 2012 – a golden eagle and two buzzards – must represent progress. This is the second significant drop in two years and we hope it is evidence of the beginning of the end of poisoning of birds of prey in Scotland. We are now, however, facing a critical moment with the maps. The purpose of the maps is to highlight problem areas with an agreed and confirmed set of data, and to build the partnership working within PAW. So, so far we’ve made good progress on those objectives but we cannot now afford to see things slipping back. So let me make it abundantly clear: poisoning cannot be replaced with other types of persecution, and whilst it’s not appropriate for me to elaborate, I was heartened to hear that the police investigation into the 2012 poisoning case for a buzzard has made progress. And it does sicken me that unfortunately, once again, a bird has died as a result of Carbofuran poisoning, but I very much hope to see a positive outcome in that particular case. If we do continue to see a downward trend with the poisoning maps, but there is evidence perhaps of other types of persecution taking its place, as I’ve already said on the record, I will have no hesitation nor indeed very little option but to consider what other measures might be necessary.

optableLast year we lost two golden eagles – one was poisoned, another was found dead in suspicious circumstances, whilst a third which was shot is thankfully in recovery with the SSPCA, and I must thank Chief Superintendant Mike Flynn and his colleagues for their excellent efforts in caring for the eagle so far and I look forward to one day seeing that particular victim of a crime return to good health. These golden eagle incidents generated a huge amount of media and public interest and rightly so, as our golden eagles are part of what makes up our national identity. As a partnership we share a duty of care to work hard to stop wildlife crime and as I stated earlier, we will know if we’ve achieved success when we see the raptors return to areas where they are currently absent. And we must also recognise that this will not happen overnight.

Keeping on the raptor theme, the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group, which is a key PAW Scotland group, has been continuing to look at a number of initiatives, latest being a hen harrier action plan. The members of this group have come up with a strategy to look at the status of this species across Scotland and see what can be done to help it recover. Whilst the plan is still being finalised I wanted to draw your attention to it and highlight what work is being done in the background. This is an exciting piece of work and I hope it will build on the partnership working approach by involving all those on the ground in monitoring and reporting on nesting birds. If I’m standing here this time next year, I hope that I’ll be able to give you an update as to what’s been accomplished and that genuine progress is being observed”.

The Minister then went on to discuss other areas of wildlife crime, police reform in Scotland and the Year of Natural Scotland. He ended by thanking everyone for their work and particularly on behalf of “the innocent victims of wildlife crime who clearly cannot speak for themselves”.

Comment:

It’s tempting to make comparisons between Scotland’s Environment Minister and his UK equivalent. In light of the UK government’s appalling recent attitude towards dealing with wildlife crime, Wheelhouse looks like an environmental god. He isn’t that, but he is certainly a good way further ahead than his contemporaries south of the border. But although comparisons are useful, it’s also important to assess his presentation just within the context of Scottish wildlife crime, and particularly within the field of raptor persecution.

In our opinion, this presentation drew the battle line. Wheelhouse is exceptionally well-informed on the persecution issue (especially for someone who has only been in post for six months), he understands the important details of how these crimes are reported (or not reported) and he seems genuinely determined that raptor persecution will not be allowed to continue on his watch.

Wheelhouse is clearly not fooled by the superficial short-term results of the poisoning maps. He understands that other persecution methods are being used to achieve the same effect. He understands that despite vicarious liability and other measures, persecution will undoubtedly continue. He understands that the only true measure of success will be the return of raptors into areas where currently they are conspicuously absent. He understands the shambolic state of raptor crime reporting and the limitations of the data in their current format. He understands the fury and frustration we all experience when we hear of yet another persecuted bird of prey and he seems to understand that our patience has run out – we simply will not tolerate this disgraceful practice any longer.

Of course, it’s easy to give a rousing speech and to say the things the audience wants to hear. It’s fair to say that most of us have become jaded by the empty rhetoric that’s been heaped on us decade after decade while the raptor killing continues right under our noses. However, to be fair to Wheelhouse, he personally is not responsible for all those previous platitudes and promises. Is he going to be different and stick by his commitment to stamp out persecution? More than with any other Environment Minister of recent years, there is a sense that something is going to happen this time. As always though, it will be the actions that follow the words that we’ll be taking the most interest in. The battle line has most definitely been drawn and now it’s a question of watching and waiting. The next persecution incident is just around the corner…

No need to criminalise possession of Carbofuran, reckons UK govt

EACLast October the cross-party Environmental Audit Committee recommended a range of measures to help tackle wildlife crime in the UK (excluding Scotland) following an extensive public inquiry into the scale of wildlife crime (see here, here, here, here, here for previous blog entries). The recommended measures included:

  • Criminalising the ‘possession’ — not just the use — of the poison Carbofuran, to make it easier to secure bird poisoning convictions;
  • Introducing an offence of vicarious liability to make landowners responsible for wildlife crimes on their land;
  • Providing long-term Home Office and Defra funding to the National Wildlife Crime Unit, and
  • Tightening up the recording of wildlife crime data to help keep track and tackle trends in wildlife crime.

Today, the Government has published its response to the EAC report and has rejected calls from MPs to criminalise possession of Carbofuran and has refused to give funding certainty for the National Wildlife Crime Unit.

Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, Joan Walley MP, said:

“The Government has missed an opportunity to take two simple measures to protect important wildlife threatened by poachers and criminals in the UK.

It has failed to follow Scotland’s lead in criminalising possession of carbofuran – the main poison used to kill birds of prey. And it has refused to provide the long-term financial certainty that the National Wildlife Crime Unit needs, only making money available for the next 12 months.

It’s good news that the Government will watch how well the ‘vicarious liability’ law works in Scotland, making landowners responsible for what happens on their estates. But the Government should also look at how well the tougher law in Scotland acts as a deterrent, not simply how many convictions there are there.”

Here are the government’s specific responses on the two measures directly relating to raptor persecution:

Recommended measure: To discharge its obligations under the EC Birds Directive, to demonstrate its commitment to addressing raptor persecution and to send a clear signal that it regards poisoning birds of prey as wholly unacceptable, we recommend that the Government immediately introduces an Order under Section 43 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 proscribing possession of carbofuran and other similar substances in England and Wales.

Government’s response: The Government is firmly committed to addressing raptor persecution in England and Wales and this is one of the UK’s wildlife crime priorities (with a focus on hen harrier, goshawk, golden eagle, white-tailed eagle, red kite and peregrine). There is a robust legal framework for protecting birds of prey with penalties which can include imprisonment for offenders.

Approvals for pesticide products containing carbofuran were revoked in 2001; this means that the advertisement, sale, supply, storage or use of products containing carbofuran is already a criminal offence under existing UK pesticide legislation. This offence carries, on conviction, an unlimited fine.

Similar restrictions apply to all other pesticides as the basis of UK and EU pesticide legislation is that no pesticide may be sold, stored or used unless it is first approved. All sale, storage and use of approved pesticides are subject to strict legislative control and are also subject to a code of practice3  as published by Defra.

Additionally the use of any poisonous substance to kill or take wild birds is already an offence under section 5 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. The laws surrounding the possession of pesticides, such as carbofuran, which are harmful to wildlife, have been considered, and the conclusion is that there are alternative ways to handle the issue other than introducing an Order under s.43 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. These include the existing powers under UK pesticide legislation (the Plant Protection Products Regulations 2011 and the Plant Protection Products (Sustainable Use) Regulations 2012), or by encouraging participation in amnesty initiatives, such as the Home Office’s pesticide amnesty, which have already been run very successfully.

 It is difficult to see what more the Government could do that could make it any worse for someone caught using or possessing carbofuran or other similar pesticides.

Recommended measure: Given the scale of ongoing persecution of birds of prey, the current law appears to carry insufficient deterrent weight. We recommend that the Government evaluates the effect of the introduction of an offence of vicarious liability in relation to raptor persecution in Scotland and considers introducing a similar offence in England and Wales in that light. We expect the Government to report to us, or otherwise publish, the results of that review within the next 12 months.

Government’s response: There is already strong legal protection afforded to birds of prey through the provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 where it is an offence to intentionally kill or injure any wild bird; take, damage or destroy the nest of any wild bird while that nest is in use or being built; or take or destroy an egg of any wild bird.

Some birds are further protected by their listing in Schedule 1 to the Act. It is an offence to intentionally or recklessly disturb them while they are building a nest, or are on, in, or near a nest containing eggs or their young. Native raptors are listed in the Schedule and so are afforded this additional protection.

The Scottish Government introduced the concept of vicarious liability for certain offences by an employee or agent through the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act (Scotland) 2011 which inserted a new section 18A into the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as it applies in Scotland). This provision came into force in January 2012 but it is early days, and as yet there have not been any convictions under the new provisions. While there are no plans to introduce similar vicarious liability offences in England, we will be looking closely at how the new offences in Scotland work in practice and once prosecutions begin to be brought forward it will be possible to start to assess the impact that the introduction of this legislation has made. It is important that such measures are able to deliver a real improvement in the enforcement of wildlife offences if they are to be considered in the shaping of our future wildlife crime policy in England and as yet it is not possible to assess the effect of these measures.

We are happy to review this as soon as suitable statistics are available.

To read all of the Government’s responses, read the report here.

Analysis of the SGA’s Deeside eagle report

Last month the SGA released a report into their ‘investigation’ into the death of the Deeside golden eagle (see here to read their report).

At the time we said we would comment on their report once we’d received responses to some pending Freedom of Information requests. We’re now in a position to comment.

So, the motivation for the SGA’s ‘investigation’ into the circumstances of this eagle’s death was because of what they perceived as “irregularities” in the media reports put out by the RSPB. Let’s have a look at those ‘irregularities’ in turn.

May2012 GE tayside grampianThe SGA don’t believe that the eagle was caught in an illegally-set trap because during their discussions with the estate’s staff, it was claimed they only ever use Mark 4 Fenn traps as opposed to Mark 6 Fenn traps (and of course statements made by those involved with grouse moor management should always be believed). The SGA say the Mark 4 Fenn trap is too weak to smash the legs of a golden eagle and it would be impossible for an eagle to get both feet caught inside the trap at the same time. However, if you read the RSPB’s original media statement about this incident (released 24th September 2012 – here) nowhere do they mention a Fenn trap. All they mention is a “spring type trap”, which covers a wide array of different traps, both legal and illegal, that could have caused the injuries sustained by that eagle. Indeed, independent veterinary pathology experts at the Scottish Agricultural College laboratory concluded that the two broken legs sustained by this eagle “could be consistent with an injury caused by a spring type trap”. It’s up to the reader to decide whether the statements made by the estate’s staff and the SGA are more authoritative than those of the independent veterinary pathologist experts at the SAC lab.

The SGA say they visited the precise location of the ‘alleged’ trapping on the estate. They say, “Close by, on one side, was a large multi-catch crow cage. On the other was a 7-8 foot deer fence”. This is an interesting interpretation of what “close by” means. We understand that the deer fence is actually at least 80m away from the location where the bird was static for 15 hours.

The SGA say that the eagle could have broken both its legs by crashing into the fence at a speed that could have been in excess of 50mph (according to their falconer friend). However, the post mortem report clearly states that the eagle’s injuries could be consistent with being caught in a spring type trap, not crashing into a static object at high speed. In the event of crashing into the fence with an estimated speed in excess of 50mph, you might expect injuries to the feet and to the pelvis, as a bare minimum. The post mortem report documented two broken legs as the bird’s only injuries. It’s up to the reader to decide whether the statement of an un-named falconer with an unknown level of ‘expertise’ holds more authority than the statements of the independent veterinary pathologist experts at the SAC lab.

The SGA say that after hitting the fence the eagle “would then have undoubtedly tried to regain flight. This is consistent with the GPS signals which we were shown by the RSPB, which appeared to show variations in the readings. The readings do not show that the bird was “static” for 15 hours”. It seems that the SGA have a limited understanding of how to interpret GPS sat tag signals. The variations in the readings are entirely within the +/- 18m variation quoted by the manufacturer (Microwave Telemetry). In other words, all of the signals received during the 15 hour period in question were within an 18m circle radius. To all intents and purposes the bird was “static”. It’s up to the reader to decide whether the SGA’s interpretation of the satellite data is more authoritative than those of the sat tag manufacturer or the experienced biologists tracking this eagle.

The SGA say, “The RSPB state that the eagle could no longer become airborne. We disagree, having witnessed on several occasions various bird species gaining flight with leg injuries”. But it wasn’t the RSPB who said that the eagle could no longer become airborne, it was the independent veterinary pathologists at the SAC, who said the injuries were so severe “they would prevent the bird from being able to take off”. If anyone has ever watched a golden eagle take off they will know that the bird bends its legs to push off from the ground/perch. Clearly, two broken legs would prevent this from happening. The SGA suggest that the bird could have used the “advantageous slope of the ground” to “get air below its wings”. Actually the area where this bird was static for 15 hours is relatively flat – not on the edge of a high cliff where an injured bird might be able to roll off and find a thermal uplift. So, imagine an eagle with two broken legs on the flat ground – it will be lying on its side, back or front – do you think it could get airborne? It’s up to the reader to decide whether the SGA’s explanation is more plausible than that of the independent veterinary pathologist experts at the SAC lab.

The SGA say that the eagle could have flown 15km in the dark, tried to land but crashed into the tree and fell to its final resting place underneath a tree branch. This crash would, according to them, explain the eagle feathers found between the road lay-by and the dead eagle. Unfortunately the post mortem report doesn’t show any evidence of the eagle having crashed into a dense conifer tree. It’s up to the reader to decide whether the opinion of the SGA is more authoritative than that of the independent veterinary pathologist experts at the SAC lab.

To conclude then, the SGA’s version of what happened to this eagle was that it died as a result of a terrible accident. However, they haven’t been able to provide any convincing evidence and what they propose happened is not supported by the evidence provided by the independent veterinary pathology experts.

The RSPB’s reaction to the SGA’s report included this statement:

This is a rather desperate statement from the SGA, which seemingly does more to reveal their nature as apologists for the worst types of wildlife crime, as they try to defend the indefensible. Indeed, it calls into question their very commitment to the aims and objectives of the partnership for Action Against Wildlife crime Scotland (PAWS)”.

It’s interesting (and obviously totally unrelated) to learn that in a recent meeting with the Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse, the SGA were told very clearly that they would not be issued with licences to kill raptors for the foreseeable future due to the ongoing incidents of criminal raptor persecution. According to the police, the case of this particular eagle obviously falls within that category.  

Unfortunately we’ll probably never find out who was responsible for this eagle’s death. Had a full police search, under warrant, taken place then further supporting evidence might have been retrieved. As it stands, it appears that this supposedly ‘on-going investigation’ is as dead as the eagle.

This bird will simply join the long list of other dead or ‘missing’ eagles whose killers have never been brought to justice: 26 eagles in six years at our last count, including ‘Alma’ who was found poisoned in 2009 on, er, this estate.

Poisoning stats down, incredulity up

Poisoning 2008-2012The ‘official’ 2012 incidents of confirmed poisoned raptors in Scotland have just been published and show a marked decline in the number of poisoning incidents. According to the latest figures, the number of reported poisoned raptors fell from 16 in 2011 to three in 2012 (one golden eagle and two buzzards).

PAW Scotland press release here

BBC news article here

Are these figures an accurate reflection of what’s going on? We don’t think so. In fact we know they’re not. What the latest poisoning maps fail to show is the number of poisoned baits that were discovered in 2012, the number of other bird species that were poisoned in 2012, and the number of other animals that were poisoned in 2012. And obviously the maps don’t show the poisoning incidents that went undetected/unreported in 2012.

We know for certain that missing from this map is a poisoning incident recorded in the ‘Border’ region in May 2012. According to the published SASA statistics, a poisoned raven and crow were found, along with meat bait and two rabbit baits. This incident is listed as being subject to an ‘on-going police investigation’. Notably, this incident was not reported in the press. Why not? More importantly, why is this incident missing from this map? Why is the focus just on the number of confirmed poisoned raptors? Yes, the illegal poisoning of raptors is of huge concern, but it’s not just raptors that are victim to this barbaric practice. By excluding the discovery of poisoned baits and other types of poisoned species, the wider picture is not being shown. Why is that?

For example, we also know from the SASA stats that a horse and a dog were poisoned with Strychnine in January 2012, a cat was poisoned with Carbofuran and Isofenphos in March 2012, and another cat was poisoned with Carbofuran and Isofenphos in July 2012. None of these incidents appear on this map. There may well be others but the published SASA stats only go up to September 2012 – there’s the customary six-month delay in publishing more recent incidents. Obviously it’s not in the public interest to know where and when lethal poison is being laid out until many months after the event.

On a similar note, has anyone noticed the dot on the map in the Whithorn region (SW Scotland)? Could this possibly be the dead buzzard we blogged about last week (see here)? All we were told was that a man had been arrested following an investigation into a dead buzzard that had been found on the Glasserton Estate. Why didn’t the police press statement mention that the forensic tests confirmed it had been poisoned? Why are we not warned when potentially lethal poisoned baits are being placed out in areas where we might visit with our children and our pets? Why is it so difficult to tell the public what’s actually going on?

On a superficial level then, the latest figures suggest that all those people who’ve been busily poisoning our raptors for the last 100+ years have suddenly stopped. It’s highly implausible, but of course it is possible. Other possibile explanations include (a) the illegal poisoners have just got better at hiding the evidence; (b) they’ve switched to a new type of poison that isn’t currently being screened for in the SASA lab; (c) they’ve switched from poisoning as their method of choice to other methods that are less detectable, such as shooting and trapping.

Fortunately, the authorities are wise to point (c). Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse said: “There has been real progress but we will not be complacent. I am determined to stamp out these practices once and for all and will remain vigilant to any change in approach being taken by those who seek to persecute raptors“. Of course, this statement is almost a carbon copy of statements made by previous Environment Ministers, going back several years, all of whom were ‘determined to stamp out illegal raptor persecution’ and all of whom failed. The current Minister has recently been presented with three perfect opportunities to make a stand: the dead golden eagle found on Deeside with two broken legs which is believed to have been caught in an illegal trap on an Angus grouse moor before being dumped further north away from the estate (we’ll be blogging more about this case in the next few days); the shot and critically injured golden eagle found on a grouse moor in Dumfries and Galloway; and the shot hen harrier that was found dead on another sporting estate in Grampian. It’ll be interesting to see how many more of these incidents he will tolerate before stronger sanctions are applied. Or, more to the point, how many more incidents we will allow him to tolerate.

Landowners & gamekeepers claim ‘misrepresentation’ on BBC’s The One Show

One-Show-smallScottish Land and Estates and the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association have written a letter of complaint to the BBC, claiming ‘misrepresentation’ on The One Show programme.

The programme (see here and here) included a feature on golden eagle persecution and during a studio interview, the RSPB’s Stuart Benn laid the blame firmly at the door of gamekeepers on Scottish grouse moors.

Doug McAdam, Chief Exec of Scottish Land & Estates, took great exception to that statement and wrote a hilarious letter of complaint, on behalf of SLE and SGA, to The One Show’s executive editor, Sandy Smith.

Here is his letter: SLE SGA complaint about BBC One Show

According to dear old Doug, there have only been four dead golden eagles found since 2010 and no charges [for these deaths] have been brought against anyone involved in grouse moor management. Conveniently, he failed to include the other known incidents of dead raptors turning up on grouse moors since 2010 (including white-tailed eagles, red kites, hen harriers, buzzards, short-eared owls, sparrowhawks, peregrines, kestrels), or the critically-injured golden eagle found shot and left to die on a grouse moor, or indeed the satellite-tagged raptors (particularly golden eagles and hen harriers) who have all gone ‘missing’ after their last known signal was received from, er, a grouse moor. There may well be more of these ‘missing’ birds but of course we’re no longer allowed to hear about them after the introduction of the new PAW Scotland ‘protocol’ that aims to keep these incidents away from the public’s gaze (see here).

Apart from trying to play down the extent of persecution incidents on grouse moors, and inferring that a lack of criminal convictions is a good indicator that gamekeepers are not involved with the illegal killing of golden eagles on grouse moors, Doug goes on to emphasise the SLE’s involvement with PAW Scotland, as though membership of that ‘partnership’ should be a measure of good behaviour. We’ve all seen how effective these ‘partnerships’ can be, following the near-extinction of breeding hen harriers on English grouse moors during the six-year Hen Harrier Dialogue ‘partnership’ designed to resolve the conflict. Indeed, three raptor conservation organisations have now resigned from that particular ‘partnership’ because they recognised it could be used as a convenient political cover by certain organisations with grouse-shooting interests.

Doug makes an astonishing claim about the PAW Scotland partnership: “Our combined efforts with the police, rural communities, the RSPB and over 120 other relevant stakeholders have been universally acknowledged as a key factor in reducing the number of raptor persecution incidents“.

Talk about misleading! For a start, there are not 120 ‘relevant stakeholders’ in relation to addressing raptor persecution. Many of the stakeholders have absolutely no involvement in directly addressing raptor persecution – they are there to specifically address other types of wildlife crime such as poaching, theft of freshwater pearl mussels, bat persecution and badger persecution.

Secondly, where does this notion come from that work by PAW Scotland has been ‘universally acknowledged as a key factor in reducing the number of raptor persecution incidents’? Has it been ‘universally acknowledged’? We don’t think PAW Scotland has had any demonstrable impact whatsoever on the number of raptor persecution incidents – where’s the evidence? Perhaps by ‘universal’ he means those with a vested interest in having people think that illegal raptor persecution is being dealt with effectively (e.g. the police, SNH, Scottish Government, SLE, SGA etc etc).

Doug finishes by saying, “Owners of moorland estates all over Scotland look after golden eagles” (ahem) and he invites Sandy Smith to visit a grouse moor “to find out for yourself the valuable conservation measures being implemented“. Let’s hope Sandy takes him up on his offer. Ooh, which grouse moor to choose? We could give Sandy quite a few suggestions….

Sandy Smith responded with a letter of his own: One Show’s reply to SLE

He says he’s sent an email to all One Show staff and suppliers “asking them to ensure they don’t make assumptions about gamekeepers based on out of date or inaccurate assumptions“.

Interestingly, Sandy Smith was the former executive editor of Panorama – a programme recognised for its investigative journalism and an ability to differentiate between fact and PR. Let’s hope he’s taken those qualities with him to The One Show.

We’ve sent a letter to Sandy, giving him the URL of this blog, to ensure his staff are kept up to date and are not basing their work on inaccurate assumptions (spin). You may wish to do the same – send your email, marked for the attention of Sandy Smith, to: TheOneShowEmails@bbc.co.uk

If you think grouse moor owners and their gamekeepers need to be held to account for their activities, please sign this e-petition and share it with your friends and colleagues: SIGN HERE.

Here’s a photo showing how well golden eagles are looked after on some Scottish grouse moors. This one was found critically injured on Buccleuch Estate last aututmn – he had been shot and left to die, although it is not known on whose land he was shot. He is currently recuperating with the SSPCA after undergoing life-saving surgery. Needless to say, nobody has been charged for this crime.

The shot golden eagle undergoing emergency surgery