Tag: scottish gamekeepers association

SGA statement re: illegal traps found on Invercauld Estate

Following the news that illegally-set spring traps were found on a grouse moor on Invercauld Estate in the Cairngorms National Park (see here), the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association has issued a statement.

Are you ready for this?

A Spokesman for The Scottish Gamekeepers Association said: “This is the first we, as an organisation, have heard about this so we will take time to make the appropriate inquiries. The SGA is an organisation which advocates best practice and condemns wildlife crime.”
END
Not exactly an unequivocal condemnation of this wildlife crime, is it? This case is a little bit awkward for the SGA, given their close ties to Invercauld Estate (SGA Vice Chair Peter Fraser worked on Invercauld Estate for 43 years).
Perhaps, like Invercauld Estate, the SGA is going to deny this crime ever happened, a bit like they did when they ‘investigated’ another disgusting wildlife crime (here is the crime, here is the SGA’s response) and another disgusting wildlife crime (here is the crime, here is the SGA’s response).
Or perhaps this time they will admit the crime happened but will suggest that the ‘evidence was planted’, a bit like SGA Vice Chairman Peter Fraser did in this interview when asked about the discovery of three poisoned buzzards and a poisoned raven that were found on Invercauld Estate in 2005 (no prosecutions, natch).
And talking of the SGA condemning wildlife crime, we’re still waiting for a statement from them about the conviction of Scottish gamekeeper William (Billy) Dick, successfully prosecuted for killing a buzzard on the Newlands Estate by throwing rocks at it and then repeatedly stamping on it (see here). At the time of Dick’s conviction, the SGA refused to comment until Dick’s appeal had been heard. As you know, Dick’s appeal was rejected a week ago and his conviction still stands (see here), so where’s the SGA’s condemnation of this gamekeeper’s crimes and where’s the information about Dick’s SGA membership status? Was he an SGA member? Is he still an SGA member?
The SGA’s commitment to condemning and tackling wildlife crime doesn’t look at all convincing, does it? And if it doesn’t look convincing to us, how does it look to the SGA’s membership? Will they think their great leaders are standing strong against illegal raptor persecution and doing all they can to apply peer pressure to eliminate it? On the above evidence, that’s unlikely.
More on the Invercauld Estate case to come….

Conviction upheld for buzzard-killing gamekeeper from Newlands Estate

In April 2016 we blogged about a Scottish gamekeeper who was appealing his conviction for killing a buzzard (here).

In August 2015, gamekeeper William (Billy) Dick, now 26, was found guilty of killing a buzzard on the Newlands Estate, Dumfriesshire, in April 2014. Two witnesses had observed him striking the buzzard with rocks and then repeatedly stamping on it (see here). In September 2015 he was sentenced: £1,500 fine for killing the buzzard and £500 for possession of the dead buzzard (see here).

Mr Dick had maintained his innocence throughout the trial and had claimed he was elsewhere when the offence took place (see here).

Mr Dick’s appeal was heard in May (here) and we’ve been waiting for the written judgement from that hearing. Yesterday, that written judgement was published and Mr Dick’s appeal was thrown out.

The judgement itself is well worth a read (see here) as it explains not only the evidence used to convict Mr Dick, but also the grounds for his appeal, which basically centred on what time Mr Dick and his line manager (Head Gamekeeper) had left a BASC training course in Dunkeld. Mr Dick has always argued he couldn’t have been the person observed killing the buzzard because he was still travelling back to Newlands Estate from Dunkeld at the time the observation was made. The Sheriff in the original trial had preferred the testimony of the two witnesses (tenants on Newlands Estate who knew gamekeeper Mr Dick) to the testimony of Mr Dick and his Head Gamekeeper.

You might think that 21st Century technology could easily have resolved this issue. For example, did the vehicle in which Mr Dick and his Head Gamekeeeper were travelling not pass any Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras enroute from Dunkeld to Newlands Estate? Surely that would have provided conclusive evidence about the timing of their journey? Apparently not.

Mr Dick’s appeal was heard by three senior judges: Lord Carloway (Lord Justice General), Lord Menzies, and Lord Bracadale. In the written judgement, each of these three judges state their individual opinion about the case and explain the reasoning behind their decisions. Two of the judges (Carloway and Bracadale) considered that the appeal should be refused. The other judge, Menzies, considered that there were sufficient grounds for appeal. [Interesting to note, according to Wikipedia, Lord Menzies’ interests include shooting]. The appeal was rejected 2:1 against.

This is a rare success and the SSPCA, Police Scotland, and Crown Office deserve credit for their efforts. Special credit to the two witnesses who risked a lot to bring this criminal to justice.

As Mr Dick’s criminal conviction has now been upheld, presumably this will now allow the prosecution to proceed against Andrew Duncan, the Newlands Estate landowner, for alleged vicarious liability of Mr Dick’s crimes. The case against Mr Duncan has been repeatedly delayed (see here) while Mr Dick’s appeal was underway.

Mr Dick’s failed appeal also leads us back to several questions we asked at the time of his conviction in August 2015. These were:

  1. Is/was criminal gamekeeper William (Billy) Dick a member of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association? The SGA refused to comment on Mr Dick’s membership status at the time, saying they ‘wanted to wait until the legal process had concluded’. Well, now Mr Dick’s criminal conviction for wildlife offences has been upheld, how about answering the question? Emails to: info@scottishgamekeepers.co.uk
  2. Will Scottish Land & Estates now expel the Newlands Estate from the ranks of SLE membership? SLE said at the time that Newlands Estate’s membership of SLE had been ‘voluntarily suspended’ pending on-going legal proceedings. Well, now the gamekeeper’s criminal conviction for wildlife offences has been upheld, how about answering the question? Emails to: info@scottishlandandestates.co.uk
  3. Will the Newlands Estate’s accredited membership of Wildlife Estates Scotland (WES) now be revoked? The conditions of membership of this scheme include: “the requirements to maintain best practice standards of animal welfare and comply with all legal requirements and relevant Scottish codes of practice”. At the time of Mr Dick’s conviction, a spokesperson for WES said the Newlands Estate’s membership and accreditation of WES had been ‘voluntary suspended’ pending the outcome of legal proceedings. Well, now the gamekeeper’s criminal conviction for wildlife offences has been upheld, how about answering the question? Emails to: info@scottishlandandestates.co.uk

We’ll also be watching closely to see whether the Newlands Estate will now be subject to a General Licence Restriction from SNH. If you recall, this restriction may be imposed by SNH where evidence of raptor crime is apparent and it has been available as a sanction for offences committed since 1 January 2014. Mr Dick killed the buzzard on Newlands Estate in April 2014. Although, even if the GL restriction is put in place, the estate can easily side-step it by applying for an ‘individual’ licence instead (e.g. see here).

Had there been a gamebird licensing scheme in place, the Newlands Estate could now have been facing a temporary ban on pheasant shooting for a number of months/years. At the moment, no such licensing scheme exists, but a petition has recently been launched by the Scottish Raptor Study Group, asking the Scottish Government to introduce such a licensing scheme. You can sign the petition HERE

New report reveals hundreds of raptors illegally killed on game-shooting estates in Scotland

RSPB persecution review 1994 2014Yesterday the RSPB published its latest figures on illegal raptor persecution in Scotland.

Rather than their usual annual review, this time they’ve produced a 20-year review covering the period 1994-2014. This is a really useful exercise as it puts the scale of (known) persecution in to perspective. It’s a sobering read.

A total of 779 birds of prey were confirmed to have been illegally killed during this period, either by poisoning, shooting or trapping. The known victims included 104 red kites, 37 golden eagles, 30 hen harriers, 16 goshawks, 10 white-tailed eagles and 458 buzzards.

In addition to these confirmed victims, a further 171 incidents are documented where poisoned baits and/or non-birds of prey victims were found, including 14 pet cats and 14 pet dogs, and then a further 134 incidents where no victim had been found but clear attempts to target raptors had been uncovered (e.g. illegally-set traps).

The report includes a map showing the landholdings of all known persecution incidents during this period. As ever, it’s pretty revealing, with a handful on the west coast but the vast majority in the uplands of central, eastern and southern Scotland – areas dominated by driven grouse shooting.

RSPB persecution review 1994 2014 map

Drilling down in to the detail, there’s a useful analysis of land-use type of confirmed poisoning incidents between 2005-2014 (219 incidents). A shocking (or not) 81% of confirmed poisoning incidents during this nine-year period were on land used for game-shooting: 57% on grouse moors and 24% on land managed for lowland pheasant shoots. This tells us a great deal about who is responsible for the vast majority of illegal raptor poisoning. Despite their continued denials and protestations, and their increasingly-desperate attempts to minimise the scale of these crimes (“it’s just a few rogues”, “it’s just a small minority”), this graphic exposes the criminality at the heart of the game-shooting industry:

RSPB persecution review 1994 2014 land use

Further damning evidence, which isn’t needed by most of us but for the benefit of those who are still in denial of the bleedin’ obvious, is this graph showing the occupations of those convicted of raptor persecution between 1994-2014. Surprise, surprise, 86% of them were gamekeepers:

RSPB persecution review 1994 2014 occupation

RSPB Scotland is to be commended for publishing this exceptionally detailed and meticulously-researched report. There are a number of things in it that are of particular interest to us and we’ll come back to those in due course. For now though, particular recognition should go to the Investigations team – they may be small in number but their contribution to exposing the disgraceful continuation of illegal raptor persecution in Scotland is enormous. They, and their colleagues south of the border, are worthy of high acclaim. If anybody reading this is in a position to recognise excellence in the field of raptor conservation, e.g. a nomination for an award, this team should be at the top of your list.

So, how has the Environment Minister, Dr Aileen McLeod, responded to such an embarrassing report? She said: “There is no doubt that the figures in this report make for uncomfortable reading, but we have made progress in recent years with the new vicarious liability provisions, the publication of the report from the Wildlife Crime Penalties Review Group, new measures implementing restrictions on the use of General Licences and earlier this year the Scottish Government funded pesticide disposal scheme that removed over 700kg of illegally held poisons in Scotland“.

“We have made progress…” Hmm. Let’s have a look:

Vicarious liability – introduced almost 4 years ago and only two successful convictions to date. A slow (but good) start, but we need to see many more convictions.

Wildlife Crime Penalties Review – Commissioned over two years ago, published last month. An excellent report calling for tougher sanctions but we’re waiting to hear whether the Environment Minister will act on the recommendations. Can only be defined as ‘progress’ if she agrees to act.

General Licence restrictions – available to be used against landholdings where raptor crimes committed/suspected from 1st January 2014. So far, only two restrictions have been implemented and those only lasted for six days each before they were suspended as legal arguments continue. A slow start, and the legal challenges were to be expected, but can’t be defined as ‘progress’ unless the restrictions are fully implemented. There should also be a lot more of them.

Pesticide disposal scheme –  implemented this year and resulted in the removal of some illegally-held poisons. That is progress, although it is tinged with frustration that the game-shooting industry was given yet another chance to avoid justice as this scheme (the second of its kind) comes 14 years after the pesticides were originally banned. It’s also interesting to note in the RSPB’s report (page 18) that evidence suggests a number of individuals have retained their illegal stocks. This is supported by more poisoning incidents that have taken place this year, after the disposal scheme ended.

So some progress has been made (and almost entirely due to the efforts of Dr McLeod’s predecessor, Paul Wheelhouse) but it is glacially slow and, so far, has not stemmed the occurrence of illegal persecution, as the damning figures in this report show all too clearly. Much, much more can and needs to be done before we’ll be convinced that Dr McLeod is having any sort of impact. She has, though, announced that tenders have just been invited for a review of game licensing practices in other countries (to inform a possible decision of introducing licensing to game-shooting estates in Scotland), and that’s a good thing, but again, the research needs to be done and then a decision made, which probably won’t happen for a number of years if past performance is anything to go by. She’d find herself with a lot more support if she got on with announcing increased investigatory powers for the SSPCA – the public consultation closed 1 year and 3 months ago – and still we await her decision as the criminals continue their rampage. It’s not impressive at all.

And what of the response of the game-shooting industry itself? Some didn’t bother to publish a statement (Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association), which ironically tells us quite a lot, although they are quoted in an article by STV (see media coverage below) where they revert to type and simply deny the evidence and slag off the RSPB instead. And remember, the SGA is a fully-paid up member of the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (cough).

Scottish Land and Estates (SLE), another PAW partner, did manage to issue a statement, via their Scottish Moorland Group (see media coverage below). Again, it’s the usual lamentable denial, characterised beautifully by this statement from Director Tim (Kim) Baynes:

“Bird of prey deaths……have fallen dramatically over the last five years in particular“.

Er, here are some persecution figures that Kim might want to re-punch in to his calculator:

2012 – 18 confirmed deaths

2013 – 28 confirmed deaths

2014 – 37 confirmed deaths

There’s also this statement:

“Our condemnation of wildlife crime is unquivocal...” All very touching but how is that “condemnation” manifested in the real world? It’s been brought to our attention that the current head gamekeeper on a Scottish grouse shooting estate has a (spent) conviction for shooting dead a raptor when he worked on another Scottish grouse moor. How does a criminal with a conviction like that (spent or not) remain employed in the game-shooting industry, let alone get a senior position on another Scottish grouse moor? Was he one of the posse of moorland gamekeepers recently invited to Holyrood to mingle with, and be applauded by, a number of MSPs, as part of the Gift of Grouse propaganda campaign? Surely not…

Download the RSPB report here

Media coverage

RSPB press release here

Statement from Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod here

Scottish Moorland Group statement here

BBC news here

STV article here

BBC Radio Scotland (Newsdrive) interview with Ian Thomson, Head of Investigations RSPB Scotland here (starts at 21.50, available for 29 days)

Guardian article here (a mis-leading headline but nevertheless good to see coverage in this paper)

Golden eagles, the SGA, and porky pies

Fearnan Angus Glens Dec 2013The season of mince pies may be upon us but the SGA is feasting on a hefty pile of pork pies.

An article has appeared on the BBC news website today (see here) based on a claim by the SGA that grouse moors are good for golden eagles, and they justify this by saying their ‘survey’ (whatever that entailed) had found golden eagles nesting in 58 areas managed for grouse shooting.

This may sound familiar to some of you. They made a similar claim back in 2013 (see here), although that time they’d found 55 nesting pairs; a claim we took apart here and here. Rather than having to go over the same old ground, again, please read these previous two blogs on this.

To say that the SGA’s latest claim is disingenuous is putting it mildly. They’ve chosen some of their words wisely, by saying “areas managed for grouse shooting”. This, of course, includes both driven and walked up grouse moors. Had their ‘survey’ included only intensively managed driven grouse moors, their results would look quite different.

As we’ve said before, golden eagles do nest successfully on some driven grouse moors, but these tend to be the exception rather than the rule. The number of vacant, unoccupied breeding territories on driven grouse moors is a bit of a giveaway to the overall picture.

What’s also misleading about their latest figures is that they haven’t included any data about the age of those pairs attempting to breed in areas managed for grouse shooting. Perhaps this was a deliberate exclusion, or perhaps they didn’t collect those data. Why is the age of the birds important? Well, if one or both of the breeding pair just happens to be a juvenile, that’s also a strong indicator that all is not well with the local golden eagle population. We’ve explained this before (see here) but this bit is worth repeating:

‘According to several scientific studies, the occurrence of breeding subadult eagles should actually be used as an early-warning of potential population decline. The reason these Scottish golden eagles are attempting to breed at three years of age is because there is little or no competition for that vacant territory. Why is there little or no competition? Because one or both of the territorial adults have been killed and there are very few non-breeding adults (known as ‘floaters’) around to challenge for the territory. If the population was healthy, it would be these breeding-age floaters that would move in to the territory, not an immature three-year old bird.

An excellent study (Whitfield et al. 2004 – see below) has also demonstrated that subadult and mixed-age breeding golden eagle pairs in Scotland have lower breeding success than adult pairs – a result of inexperience and persecution, seeing as most golden eagle territories in Scotland with subadult breeders are in areas associated with illegal persecution’.

According to a presentation at this year’s recent SOC conference, there is evidence from a number of golden eagle territories on driven grouse moors in Perthshire that show either one or both of the pair attempting to breed is a juvenile. These closely-monitored sites (subject to long-term monitoring by experts from the Scottish Raptor Study Group) are showing an unusually high turnover rate of adult golden eagles. This situation is easily masked by superficial SGA claims that golden eagles are breeding there. To the unsuspecting reader, it will sound like all is rosy but to get to the actual truth you need to look a bit more closely.

Also included in today’s BBC article are the following statements:

“The SGA said numbers of golden eagles were recovering from declines in the 1960s caused by pesticides”

and

“It [the SGA] said the management of grouse moors had helped to increase Scotland’s population of the large raptors”.

This is contrary to decades of peer-reviewed science that shows unequivocally that golden eagle recovery is severely limited in areas managed for driven grouse shooting. It’s outrageous that the BBC website has published these statements without providing an opportunity for any organisation to contest their validity. These statements amount to lies and the BBC should not have published them.

If you’d like to complain to the BBC, and ask them to retract these statements, please contact them here (click on ‘make a complaint’) – http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/complain-online/

The photograph shows a dead golden eagle called ‘Fearnan’ who was found poisoned on a grouse moor in the Angus Glens in 2013.

UPDATE 5PM: The BBC article has now been updated with a quote from RSPB Scotland, who also dispute the SGA’s findings.

Duncan Orr-Ewing said: “We are not sure where the SGA have got their information, however, if correct their survey highlights only 53% occupancy  of known traditional golden eagle territories in the central and eastern Highlands, far below the natural carrying capacity and continues to indicate that the species is in unfavourable conservation status in this area“.

To read what else he had to say see updated BBC article here

Educating the 21st Century gamekeeper – with 19th Century ignorance

We often hear (from the shooting industry) about how well qualified young gamekeepers are these days and how these young men & women are so much better informed than their predecessors. Two years ago there was a parliamentary motion put forward to recognise the need for ‘well-trained young gamekeepers’ and the value of responsible gamekeeping to Scotland’s economy and biodiversity (see here), and this year, the SGA’s Young Gamekeeper of the Year Award was presented by none other than the Environment Minister (see here).

SGA Chairman Alex Hogg has hailed the Scottish colleges involved (see here), and apparently all graduates must pass key tests in various areas and have an understanding of conservation.

Sounds good, right?

One of the colleges offering qualifications in gamekeeping is Borders College. They have a webpage headed: ‘Educating the 21st Century Gamekeeper’ (see here).

Imagine our surprise, then, when we were sent the following image, captured from Facebook two days ago:

Garry Dickson

In case you can’t read it, here is the comment written by Garry Dickson about protected native goshawks:

“Aye, it’s a pity that here in Scotland they predate our native reds as well. SNH should extract the digit and allow keepers to control raptors as well as badgers. Our reds are hanging on by the skin of their teeth“.

Who’s Garry Dickson? He’s a lecturer on the gamekeeping course at Borders College.

Is this the sort of ill-informed, unsubstantiated nonsense he’s teaching to young gamekeeping students at Borders College? Mind you, if they don’t hear it from their lecturer they’ll probably hear it from the SGA – Alex Hogg shared his ignorance on goshawks a couple of years ago – see here.

It’s no surprise that the goshawk is listed as a wildlife crime priority species (because of the extent of persecution against it) if armies of young gamekeeping graduates are being let loose in the countryside after being taught such moronic 19th Century prejudice.

Raeshaw and Burnfoot Estates to appeal General Licence Restriction orders

Raeshaw Corshope GL restriction map 2015Further to last week’s news that SNH has suspended the use of General Licences on four estates for what it said was “clear evidence that wildlife crimes have been committed on these properties”, which includes the discovery of poisoned raptors and illegal traps (see here and here), two of the estates involved are set to appeal.

According to quotes in this week’s Scottish Farmer, defence agent David McKie, representing Raeshaw Estate in the Borders, said: “We are disappointed by this decision and will be vigorously challenging it“.

A spokesman for Burnfoot Estate said: “We absolutely dispute the conclusions reached by SNH and consider the decision to be unfair. We will be appealing the decision“.

Meanwhile, a spokesperson for Scottish Land & Estates is quoted: “Our concerns about the level of evidence and robustness of process, which were raised previously along with other land management organisations, remain. We will be working with key industry stakeholders to learn more about the circumstances surrounding these new restrictions“.

A spokesman for the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association is quoted: “It is up to the estates involved to take counsel and make a case if they feel there is insufficient evidence for the measure to proceed. When this measure was initially subject to consultation, the SGA opposed it, not in the spirit of what it was trying to do, but rather that it was simply not a good proposal“.

Article in Scottish Farmer here

Wonder if Raeshaw Estate or Burnfoot Estate is a member of the SLE?

Scottish gamekeeper convicted of snaring offences on estate in Aberdeenshire

George Allan, 61, a Scottish gamekeeper working on an estate in Aberdeenshire, has been convicted of two snaring offences. He was sentenced yesterday at Aberdeen Sheriff Court and received a £600 fine.

A press release about this conviction is available on the SSPCA website here.

According to our local sources, Allan was a full time gamekeeper employed by the Easter Skene Shooting Syndicate on land rented to them by Dunecht Estate. There is no suggestion that Dunecht Estate had any knowledge of what Allan was up to.

This, clearly, is not a raptor persecution case, so some people (people who don’t like this blog) will no doubt query why we’re blogging about it. There are a few reasons why:

  1. This is yet further evidence that some gamekeepers are not the ‘law-abiding guardians of the countryside and friends to all animals’ that we’re so frequently told they are. This gamekeeper had completed the obligatory snaring training course (a legal requirement for anyone who wishes to set snares in Scotland) and yet, even though he had passed this course and so presumably knew the laws relating to snare-use, he chose to ignore them.
  2. He pled guilty to two snaring offences. There is no mention of him being convicted for causing unnecessary suffering to a badger. There is no doubt whatsoever that this badger suffered – it was electrocuted (from the electric fence) and, judging by the graphic photograph, it was more than likely asphyxiated too. So why wasn’t there a welfare charge against this keeper? Did the Crown accept a plea bargain and decide to just go for the snaring offences? As there was no conviction relating to the welfare of the badger, does this mean that this badger-related wildlife crime will not feature in the Government’s annual statistics on recorded badger crime?
  3. In order to secure the snaring convictions, the SSPCA used some advanced techniques to find supporting evidence. For the first time, they used forensic entomology to determine the age of the fly larvae present on the badger, to show that the badger had been in that snare for longer than the 24 hour period ‘allowed’ by the snaring regulations. Further evidence, as if it was needed (it isn’t), that the SSPCA will make extraordinary efforts to investigate wildlife crime offences. Why is it taking Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod so very long to make a decision about increasing the investigatory powers of this organisation? It’s now been one year and two months since the public consultation ended on this issue. These SSPCA investigators are experts in the field and know how to secure evidence that will stand up to legal scrutiny. It’s an absolute no-brainer that they should be given increased investigatory powers if the Scottish Government is committed to cracking down on wildlife crime, as it says it is.
  4. We’re interested to know if criminal gamekeeper George Allan is/was a member of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association. Emails to: info@scottishgamekeepers.co.uk

badger pic 1 - Copy

Kildrummy Estate: vicarious liability prosecution?

On 11th December 2014, Scottish gamekeeper (and SGA member) George Mutch was convicted of four wildlife crime offences that he’d committed on the Kildrummy Estate, Aberdeenshire in 2012 (see here).

On 12th January 2015, Mutch was given a four month custodial sentence for his crimes; the first gamekeeper to be jailed in the UK for killing raptors (see here).

Both his conviction and sentence were widely welcomed across the conservation community, not least because video evidence had been deemed admissible in this case and because the agencies involved in the investigation and prosecution had worked exceptionally hard to achieve these results.

Hopes were high that a subsequent vicarious liability prosecution would follow, especially when a journalist friend told us that Fiscal Tom Dysart had made a point of asking Mutch in court whether he’d received any training for the use of his traps, to which Mutch had replied, “No”. That response would indicate that a defence of ‘due diligence‘ wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny for anyone charged with being vicariously liable for Mutch’s crimes. All good so far, although Andy Wightman cast doubt over the feasibility of charging someone from Kildrummy Estate given the difficulty of establishing ownership there (read his blog here).

So seven months on, what’s happening now?

Well, it all gets a bit interesting around about now.  As we understand it, for offences committed under the Wildlife & Countryside Act, criminal proceedings MUST begin within three years from the date of the commission of the offence (two years in England & Wales). After three years, the case becomes ‘time-barred’ and it is no longer possible to prosecute.

Mutch was convicted of four offences, and the dates those offences were commissioned are as follows (info from COPFS press release, January 2015) –

  1. On 14 August 2012 & 15 August 2012, Mutch did intentionally or recklessly kill or take a wild bird, namely a goshawk.
  2. On 23 August 2012 and 24 August 2012, Mutch did intentionally or recklessly take a wild bird, namely a buzzard.
  3. On 28 August 2012, Mutch did intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a wild bird, namely a goshawk.
  4. Between 6 August 2012 – 13 September 2012, Mutch did use a trap to catch two goshawks and a buzzard.

Pay close attention to those dates. The first three offences are now time-barred (unless someone has already been charged) because it is over three years since they took place. The final offence is not quite time-barred, but will be by this Sunday (13 Sept 2015).

So, two big questions:

  1.  Has somebody from Kildrummy Estate been charged for a vicarious liability prosecution for the first three offences, and if not, why not?
  2. Is the Crown Office intending to charge someone (before Sunday) from Kildrummy Estate for a vicarious liability prosecution for the fourth offence, and if not, why not?

This case is of huge public interest and we don’t think it unreasonable to be asking questions, especially when successive Environment Ministers keep telling us that the effectiveness of Government policy against the raptor killers will be measured by the success of approaches such as vicarious liability.

If, like us, you’re curious about what’s happening with this case, you can email the Crown Office and ask them. The usual response when we ask about criminal cases is ‘As this case is on-going it would be inappropriate to comment’. It’s a handy ‘get out’ option when the authorities want to keep the public in the dark. The Crown Office could legitimately respond like this in this case, if they’ve already charged somebody. However, if they haven’t charged anybody, then the case is now time-barred and therefore cannot be said to be ‘on-going’.

Let’s see how transparent and accountable they wish to be. Emails to Helen Nisbet, Head of Wildlife & Environmental Crime Unit, Crown Office & Procurators Fiscal Office: Helen.Nisbet@copfs.gsi.gov.uk

The intellectual capacity of a cabbage

There was an article in Country Life magazine recently (26th Aug edition) on the proposed plan (see here) to bolster the golden eagle population in southern Scotland. (Thanks to the contributor who sent us a copy).

The short piece included commentary from Dr Cat Barlow (the new project officer) and also a bit from everybody’s favourite ecological expert, Alex Hogg of the SGA:

‘Alex Hogg, Chairman of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, believes that the large raptors [golden eagles] could threaten not only grouse, but, ironically, the endangered hen harrier. “Grouse cover a huge area and can stand the pressure of hunting, but hen harriers nest en masse and are thus particularly vulnerable. And white hares, one of the eagle’s favourite prey, only breed well in areas where foxes are controlled”, he points out. He adds: “I’m delighted about the idea of the golden-eagle release, but I’m worried there won’t be enough food supply. My overriding feeling is that if the golden eagle had wanted to settle in southern Scotland, it would have done so“‘.

My ‘overriding feeling’ is that Alex Hogg has the intellectual capacity of a cabbage.

How many “en masse nesting” hen harriers are there in southern Scotland? According to the most recent data available from the Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme, in 2013 one hundred hen harrier home ranges were checked across southern Scotland for occupancy. Of those 100, there were only 23 breeding attempts and of those, only 18 nests produced fledglings. Here are the data:

Dumfries & Galloway: 24 home ranges checked, 10 breeding attempts, 8 nests producing fledglings.

Lothian & Borders: 5 home ranges checked, 3 breeding attempts, 2 nests producing fledglings.

South Strathclyde: 71 home ranges checked, 10 breeding attempts, 8 nests producing fledglings.

As for a shortage of food, perhaps if the grouse moor gamekeepers in southern Scotland (and elsewhere) weren’t slaughtering mountain hares in their thousands (e.g. see here), in addition to the mass killing of other eagle prey items such as crows, stoats, weasels, fox cubs etc, Alex’s touching concern could be put to rest.

SGA attacks RSPB on false premise

Annie Langholm harrier shot April 2015Never ones to miss an opportunity to stick the boot in on the RSPB, those wildlife crime-fighting heroes at the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association have mis-kicked, again.

They’ve been whining in the media (Scottish Farmer, see here) about the timing of the RSPB’s press release relating to the discovery of a shot hen harrier called ‘Annie’ (see here).

As you’ll recall, Annie was a young satellite-tagged hen harrier from the Langholm project whose tag indicated she’d stopped moving in March this year (see here). Her corpse was discovered on a grouse moor in late April after several weeks of intensive moorland searches (by the RSPB) and the news of her death was published on 11th August, the day before the start of the grouse-shooting season, when everyone associated with driven grouse shooting is doing their level best to promote it as a sustainable, conservation-friendly tradition (ahem).

How inconsiderate of the RSPB to break this news on the day before the Inglorious 12th. How dare they inconvenience the grouse-shooting lobby like that. Shame on the RSPB for telling the world about another illegally killed raptor found on a grouse moor.

The thing is, the RSPB wasn’t in control of when the news was released.

When Annie’s body had been found (late April), it was submitted the very next day to the SAC Veterinary lab for post mortem. The post mortem results were not released to the RSPB until early August. The RSPB passed on the results to Police Scotland on 5th August. It was then Police Scotland’s call as to when the news was released. According to the article in Scottish Farmer (see here), the police asked the RSPB to sit on the news so that they (Police Scotland) could “crime” the incident, whatever that means. It was then decided, apparently after discussion with the Scottish Government (since when do they get involved with when crime details are released?!) that the news would be published on 11th August.

Instead of trying to smear and discredit the RSPB for publicising this crime, surely the SGA, as a co- member of the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime, should be (a) praising the RSPB for putting in the time and effort, at their own expense, in extreme weather conditions, to retrieve Annie’s corpse; (b) asking the SAC vet lab why it took over three months for the post mortem results to be made available; (c) praising the RSPB for preparing and publishing the press release; (d) focusing their condemnation on the criminal(s) responsible for killing this bird, who, with all probability, are members of the game-shooting industry; and (e) asking the RSPB and other members of PAW Scotland how they (SGA) can usefully contribute to help stop these killings?

Is that really too much to ask?