Tag: scottish gamekeepers association

SGA Chairman claims he was “stitched up” by Channel 4 News

Mod Game coverbRemember last month when Channel 4 News did a piece on raptor persecution on grouse moors in Scotland? The one where SGA Chairman Alex Hogg was asked whether gamekeepers were poisoning, shooting and trapping birds of prey and he replied:

“No they aren’t. We would dispute that“.

Yes, THAT programme (see here and here for previous blogs).

Well according to the monthly game keeping rag Modern Gamekeeping, Hogg reckons Channel 4 News stitched him up.

According to the article, Hogg said that during a one-hour interview he was asked the question of whether gamekeepers were killing raptors at least half a dozen times. “By the time the interviewer asked it the last time, I was so annoyed I just said ‘No’ and didn’t give a reason“.

Sounds like he stitched himself up, telling a blatant lie that he must have known was going to be challenged with irrefutable evidence that gamekeepers have been convicted for illegally killing raptors, including members of his own organisation.

He also complains about being interviewed last (after Ian Thomson of RSPB Scotland, Dominic Dyer of Care for the Wild, and Logan Steele of the Scottish Raptor Study Group), and therefore having to respond to ‘claims’ [aka given facts] made by the other interviewees, and not being allowed to talk about waders [and presumably the unproven, non-evidenced claims that raptors are wiping them out and therefore keepers should be able to cull raptors].

He also says, “There were also a lot of figures used that were not official figures held by the police or the Scottish Government“. Really? The figures used were based on scientific evidence and official court records, accepted by every person and organisation in the country except for those with a vested interest in the grouse-shooting industry.

He goes on to argue that the finished programme was “extreme”, designed to provoke an emotional response from the public, and didn’t fairly represent what he was trying to say. How you can misrepresent, “No they aren’t. We would dispute that” in response to a simple question of whether gamekeepers are persecuting raptors is a mystery. Did he mean to say, ‘Yes, we are illegally killing raptors’?

All the Hogg nonsense aside, there is a particularly interesting paragraph in the article, presumably written by the rag’s editor. It reads:

“Presenter Cordelia Lynch then quoted RSPB figures to claim that hen harriers were ‘close to extinction’ on the grounds that none had bred last year in England – ignoring the fact that the bird is categorised as ‘Least Concern’ worldwide with a global population of more than 1,300,000 and its major threat is stated to be ‘habitat loss’. It is also said to be ‘highly vulnerable to the impacts of potential wind energy developments’ (source: BTO)“.

Now, this claim of the species being classified as ‘Least Concern’ is often trotted out by those trying to downplay the seriousness of the species’ conservation status in the UK. It is an accurate statement in as much as this is what is written on the species’ IUCN Red List entry (from where the quote is taken), with the addition of one important statement conveniently left out by the Modern Gamekeeping editor – under the heading ‘Major Threats’:

“Persecution is an important threat locally, notably on game preserves in Scotland (del Hoyo et al. 1994)”.

The species’ IUCN listing is fine to use if you want to stick to a species’ global conservation status and ignore its European and UK conservation status. If you look at the IUCN global status for the three wader species that Hogg and friends are up in arms about, their listings also give little cause for concern:

Lapwing – listed as Least Concern. Estimated population c. 5,200,000-10,000,000 individuals. Major threats include land use intensification, pollution and hunting. [Note, no mention of raptors being a major threat].

Curlew – listed as Near Threatened. Estimated population c. 77,000-1,065,000 individuals. Major threats include afforestation, agricultural intensification and hunting. [Note, no mention of raptors being a major threat].

Golden Plover – listed as Least Concern. No population estimate given. Major threats include cultivation and afforestation, severe weather conditions and hunting. [Note, no mention of raptors being a major threat].

So, on the basis of suggesting that the hen harrier’s conservation status is of ‘least concern’ on a global scale [and therefore why all the fuss of losing an entire breeding population in England?], the statement is equally as applicable to those three wader species, right? We shouldn’t be concerned about any of them because on a global scale they’re all doing just fine, right?

Wrong.

Fortunately, government and non-governmental organisations are a lot more clued in and understand the concept, and importance, of national, regional and local biodiversity. Indeed, the Westminster and Scottish Governments have a statutory responsibility for ensuring that national biodiversity targets are met and maintained (although you wouldn’t know it by their continuing failure to address illegal raptor persecution). Rather than use the broad-based IUCN Red List as guidance, they look to more detailed and relevant assessments such as the UK ‘Birds of Conservation Concern’ scientific review (see here). In this document, the hen harrier and lapwing are red listed, and the golden plover and curlew are amber listed.

It’s quite telling, isn’t it, that those with a vested interest in grouse-shooting should continue to not only deny their involvement in the catastrophic loss of an entire breeding population (hen harriers in England), but also continue to downplay its conservation significance.

Link between grouse moors & raptor persecution based on ‘ill-informed rumours’, apparently

Fearnan Angus Glens Dec 2013Last month a letter written by Logan Steele was published in the Scotsman, urging the government to introduce a licensing system for grouse shooting estates (see here).

This came on the back of the news that the Scottish Raptor Study Group and RSPB Scotland had written to the Environment Minister to call for estate licensing (see here) following the discovery of poisoned golden eagle ‘Fearnan’, found dead on an Angus grouse moor in December 2013 – the latest in a very long line of victims.

This month, the Scotsman published a response letter, penned by Tim Baynes, the Director of Scottish Land & Estates Moorland Group (a group chaired by Lord Hopetoun [Leadhills Estate] and comprising moorland owners and representatives of GWCT and the SGA – see here).

It’s perhaps then of little surprise to read the content of Mr Baynes’ letter – read it here. Basically, Mr Baynes is suggesting that Logan Steele’s assertions of a strong link between grouse moor management and the illegal persecution of raptors is ‘probably based on ill-informed rumours’.

GE Cons FrThose ‘ill-informed rumours’ no doubt include the following peer-reviewed scientific publications, some dating back over ten years (so the results have been available for a long time), which have all shown a direct link between driven grouse moor management and raptor persecution (and this list is by no means exhaustive – it’s just the ones we have to hand):

Etheridge et al (1997). The effects of illegal killing and destruction of nests by humans on the population dynamics of the hen harrier in Scotland. Journal Applied Ecology 34: 1081-1105.

Stott (1998). Hen harrier breeding success on English grouse moors. British Birds 91: 107-108.

Green & Etheridge (1999). Breeding success of the hen harrier in relation to the distribution of grouse moors & the red fox. Journal Applied Ecology 36: 472-483.

Whitfield et al (2003). The association of grouse moors in Scotland with the illegal use of poisons to control predators. Biological Conservation 114: 157-163.

Hardey et al (2003). Variation in breeding success of inland peregrine falcon in three regions of Scotland 1991-2000. In Thompson et al [Eds] Birds of Prey in a Changing Environment. SNH.

Whitfield et al (2004). The effects of persecution on age of breeding and territory occupation in golden eagles in Scotland. Biological Conservation 118: 249-259.

Whitfield et al (2004). Modelling the effects of persecution on the population dynamics of golden eagles in Scotland. Biological Conservation 118: 319-333.

Whitfield et al (2007). Factors constraining the distribution of golden eagles in Scotland. Bird Study 54: 199-211.

Whitfield et al (2008). A Conservation Framework for Golden Eagles: Implications for their Conservation & Management in Scotland. SNH.

Summers et al (2010). Changes in hen harrier numbers in relation to grouse moor management. In Thompson et al [Eds] Birds of Prey in a Changing Environment. SNH.

Redpath et al (2010). People and nature in conflict: can we reconcile hen harrier conservation and game management? In Baxter & Galbraith [Eds] Species Management: Challenges and Solutions for the 21st Century. SNH.

Smart et al (2010). Illegal killing slows population recovery of a reintroduced raptor of high conservation concern – the red kite. Biological Conservation 143: 1278-1286.

McMillan (2011). Raptor persecution on a large Perthshire estate: a historical study. Scottish Birds 31: 195-205.

Amar et al (2012). Linking nest histories, remotely sensed land use data and wildlife crime records to explore the impact of grouse moor management on peregrine falcon populations. Biological Conservation 145: 86-94.

Watson (2013). Golden eagle colonisation of grouse moors in north-east Scotland during the Second World War. Scottish Birds 33: 31-33.

Those ‘ill-informed rumours’ must also include all the reported incidents of illegally-killed or illegally-injured birds of prey that have been discovered on grouse moors over the last few decades (see here for a list of reported persecution incidents in the Angus Glens and here for a list of reported persecution incidents in South Lanarkshire).  These lists relate to reported incidents from grouse moors at Glenogil, Invermark, Millden, Airlie and Leadhills but don’t include other grouse moors in other parts of the country where illegally-killed raptors have been discovered, such as Farr & Kyllachy, Moy, Skibo, Cawdor, Corrybrough, Glenbuchat, Cabrach, Raeshaw, Invercauld, Glenlochy, Dinnet & Kinord, Glenfeshie, Dunecht, Strathspey and Glenturret, for example. And again, this list is by no means exhaustive.

Mr Baynes is being disingenuous at best to point to the  fact that two months on from the illegal death of Fearnan there is no evidence to link the crime to anyone on a grouse moor. While his assertion is technically correct, it is not an indication that anyone on a grouse moor was NOT responsible. Viewing one incident in isolation is also misleading – and the results of this police ‘investigation’ are more reflective of ineffective policing than anything else – there are many many examples of this ineptitude and include police actions such as delayed appeals for information (often up to 4-6 months after the discovery of a crime against raptors), issuing cryptic police statements about the type of crime and its location, arriving at scenes of crime in highly visible marked police vehicles instead of a covert entry, and failing to undertake timely follow-up searches of associated land, vehicles and buildings to search for evidence. This police ineptitude, followed by plea bargaining and failures to accept evidence by the Fiscals, means that few of the incidents listed above have resulted in a prosecution (although there are some notable exceptions including convictions of gamekeepers at Skibo, Moy, Dinnet & Kinord, Invercauld and Leadhills).

Added to this mix is the legal advice given to gamekeepers should they find themselves at the centre of a police investigation. This legal advice undoubtedly thwarts any attempt by the police to investigate an alleged raptor persecution crime. This from the SGA to their members:

“Accordingly, it is the advice normally given by solicitors to clients that they need make no reply to any allegation and that they should not in fact give any further information than their name, address and date of birth in answer to any police questions“.

This advice is technically correct but is it what the public would expect from an organisation that is purportedly committed to partnership working to stamp out illegal raptor persecution?

We would suggest that Mr Baynes takes some time to read the above peer-reviewed scientific publications that demonstrate a clear and unequivocal link between driven grouse moor management and the illegal persecution of raptors, as well as taking the time to read up on the many reported incidents of raptor persecution on grouse moors, before he writes any more embarrassingly ignorant statements of denial in the national press.

Senior SGA man calling for complete eradication of sea eagles?

Remember last week when we blogged about the calls from a former Crofting Commissioner, Donnie Ross, for the ‘complete eradication’ of sea eagles (see here)?

Well have a look at the response of George Macdonald, the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association’s Development, Education & Training Officer – this is what he posted on his Facebook page (and we got a screen shot before he deleted it):

George MacDonald SGA sea eagles Feb 10 2014

To us, and to others, it seems, this looks like the senior SGA man is endorsing the former Crofting Commissioner’s view that sea eagles (and pine martens) should be ‘absolutely destroyed’.

Mr Macdonald has denied the claims – see here. He says he ‘was meaning that people need to look at the issue’. If that’s what he meant, why not say, “People need to look at the issue” rather than say, “Mr Ross of Leault is absolutely correct with his observations”?

The SGA is a member of the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime, and they are also represented on the PAW Scotland Raptor Group – a consortium of organisations supposedly working towards the eradication of raptor persecution in Scotland (see here).

Is it any wonder that this group has been so utterly ineffective?

Isn’t it time that the SGA was booted off this group?

Some comments on that Channel 4 News report

Channel-FourFor those who missed it, the Channel 4 News report on the illegal persecution of raptors on Scottish grouse moors can be watched here for a few days.

First of all, we need to be celebrating that raptor persecution has been featured on a national mainstream TV news channel. What a long way this subject has come. The awareness-raising power of a news report like this should not be underestimated. Since the programme aired four hours ago, we’ve already been contacted by three journalists whose interest has been piqued. Well done Channel 4 News.

There were excellent interviews with Ian Thomson, Head of Investigations at RSPB Scotland, who referred to “an absolute catalogue of illegal killing” over the last few years in the Angus Glens (e.g. see here), and Logan Steele of the Scottish Raptor Study Group, someone who has decades of first-hand experience recording the deaths of illegally-killed raptors in this area and beyond.

But perhaps the best interview was that with Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association Chairman, Alex Hogg. We couldn’t have wished for a better performance. Telling lies on national telly is never a good strategy. Especially when you deny that gamekeepers are involved with the poisoning, shooting and trapping of raptors, knowing full well that there is a public record of gamekeepers who have been convicted for doing just that, as well as committing other wildlife crimes. Here is a quick list of 14 convicted gamekeepers just covering the last two years (full details of each case can be found elsewhere on this blog) –

Jan 2012: Gamekeeper David Whitefield convicted of poisoning 4 buzzards.

Jan 2012: Gamekeeper Cyril McLachlan convicted of possessing a banned poison.

April 2012: Gamekeeper Robert Christie convicted of illegal use of a trap.

June 2012: Gamekeeper Jonathan Smith Graham convicted of illegal use of a trap.

Sept 2012: Gamekeeper Tom McKellar convicted of possessing a banned poison.

Nov 2012: Gamekeeper Bill Scobie convicted of possessing and using a banned poison.

Jan 2013: Gamekeeper Robert Hebblewhite convicted of poisoning buzzards.

Feb 2013: Gamekeeper Shaun Allanson convicted of illegal use of a trap.

Feb 2013: Gamekeeper (un-named) cautioned for illegal use of a trap.

May 2013: Gamekeeper Brian Petrie convicted for trapping offences.

June 2013: Gamekeeper Peter Bell convicted for poisoning a buzzard.

July 2013: Gamekeeper Colin Burne convicted for trapping then battering to death 2 buzzards.

Sept 2013: Gamekeeper Andrew Knights convicted for storing banned poisons.

Dec 2013: Gamekeeper Wayne Priday convicted for setting an illegal trap.

There are a further six cases either currently under way or due to start, all involving gamekeepers and all accused of alleged persecution including the poisoning, shooting, trapping and battering to death of birds of prey.

After lying about the involvement of gamekeepers in raptor persecution crimes, Hogg then went on to say that gamekeepers want a system in place whereby “if the populations [of raptors] are too high all over the United Kingdom” then a decision needs to be taken as to whether the species needs to be culled on grouse moors. But, “We don’t want to cull them; we’d rather the government done it”.

If anyone can explain to us (a) what is a “too high” population? and (b) why a species’ national population size should have any bearing on a proposed cull of that species on a particular grouse moor, please do enlighten us.

The final interview was a very short one with the Environment Minister, who was asked why he won’t “just fully regulate the [game-shooting] industry like other countries”?

His answer: “We want to avoid putting in place something that might be seen as a draconian response, or too restrictive a response. We’re not saying we wouldn’t do this, eventually…”

In other words, giving current measures ‘time’ to take effect (without actually defining the time scale) is just an excuse to do nothing and appease the mighty landowners.

Gamekeepers aren’t persecuting raptors, says SGA’s Chairman

Channel-FourHere’s a preview to tonight’s story on Channel 4 News….watch the video of SGA Chairman Alex Hogg responding to the reporter’s question about whether gamekeepers are poisoning, shooting and trapping birds of prey:

“No they aren’t. We would dispute that“.

He can dispute it all he likes – the growing list of convicted gamekeepers tells a different story, and there are currently six on-going court cases to boot, including allegations of illegal trapping, poisoning, shooting and battering.

C4 News article and accompanying 3 video clips available here, including a preview of an interview with RSPB Scotland’s Head of Investigations, Ian Thomson.

Watch Channel 4 News this evening at 7pm for full story.

UPDATE 23.55hrs: Read our comments on the full report here

Environment Minister faces more calls for grouse shoot licences

SRSGWell now this is interesting.

The Scottish Raptor Study Group (SRSG) has called for the Scottish Government to introduce grouse-shooting licences. Many of us have been asking for this action for some time, but to hear it from the SRSG is quite something.

The SRSG, which has been monitoring raptor populations in Scotland since the 1980s, is typically quite a restrained yet highly respected organisation, preferring to work quietly behind the scenes rather than make bold policy statements. You know that things are pretty dire when the SRSG is calling for grouse shooting licencing.

So what’s forced their hand? Well, if you read their letter to the Environment Minister (see here, scroll down to 18th January), it seems that the illegal poisoning of golden eagle Fearnan was the catalyst, as it has been for so many of us. But there’s more to it than that…

Take a closer look at their letter. They refer to a claim made by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association last July that gamekeepers are good for golden eagle conservation. We blogged about that claim here, and you really should read it to understand the context of what the SRSG is saying.

The SGA published a map that attempted to portray the notion that golden eagles were doing ok on keepered grouse moors in the East and Central Highlands (notorious raptor black spots). What the SRSG has done is provide some much-needed context to that map.

According to the SGA, there are ‘at least 55 active golden eagle nests’ in these ‘keepered grouse areas’; the SRSG is saying that there are 52 ‘active nests’ in the area, and of those 52, only 8 are on driven grouse moors. Crucially, the SRSG also includes information about the vacant golden eagle territories in the area – information that the SGA conveniently ‘forgot’ to include. According to the SRSG, there are an additional 57 ‘non-active’ golden eagle nests in this area, and 31 of them (54%) happen to be on driven grouse moors.

Hmm. The picture doesn’t look quite so rosy now, does it?

What also impressed us about the SRSG’s letter is their well-thought-out approach to licensing. They haven’t taken the usual route of calling for a blanket ‘estate-licensing’ system. Instead, they’ve proposed a system whereby the licensing would cover individuals as well as land-holdings (estates), thus side-stepping the predictable ploys that would probably be used by the grouse-shooting industry to avoid being licensed.

The BBC has covered this news story today (see here), and it looks like the RSPB has also called on the government to consider further sanctions.

The pressure is mounting.

Naturally, the SGA and Scottish Land & Estates (SLE) have responded against the proposed licensing sanctions (read the BBC article). Predictably, SLE claim that raptor persecution is in ‘significant decline’ – they are, of course, referring to 2012 figures which did show a drop in reported poisoning figures – and conveniently ignored the 2013 figures which show a 100% increase in poisoning. To be fair, the 2013 ‘official’ figures have not yet been released, but they know fine well what they show and they seem determined to ignore them for as long as possible (i.e. until they’re actually published, which will take place at some point this year).

The SGA meanwhile, suggest that there is ‘perpetual over-regulation’ (of estates) – the truth is somewhat different – game-shooting is probably one of the least regulated industries and what regulation is in place is rarely enforced.

Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse has responded to the SRSG’s letter and while he hasn’t ruled out licensing, he still seems to be clinging on to previous measures and wanting to give them time to take effect.

We’ll be blogging next week about Mr Wheelhouse’s response to the SRSG’s letter and his response to all those emails he received over Xmas about the death of golden eagle Fearnan. It won’t make for comfortable reading.

Latest measure to tackle raptor persecution now in place

Last July, following a series of raptor persecution incidents, Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse announced his intention to introduce ‘further measures’ to tackle the ongoing problem (see here).

One of those measures has recently come in to force (as of 1st Jan 2014).

That measure is an enabling paragraph in some of the 2014 General Licences that says this:

SNH reserves the right to exclude the use of this General Licence by certain persons and/or on certain areas of land where we have reason to believe that wild birds have been taken or killed by such persons and/or on such land other than in accordance with this General Licence.

First of all, we applaud Paul Wheelhouse’s intentions, at least, and his determination to make sure this measure has been enacted. Good for him. However, as we blogged at the time, we really don’t see how this latest measure can be enforced (see here for our reasons).

For once, it seems that many of the game-shooting organisations are in agreement with us. Before SNH issued the 2014 General Licences, they had their usual consultation period and asked for comments about this new enabling paragraph, amongst other things (see here). They have just published those consultation responses and all the respondents from within the game-shooting lobby raised many of the same concerns as us.

So, even though this new measure is now in place, it is highly unlikely that it will ever be effectively deployed….a bit like the legislation relating to vicarious liability. We might be wrong, of course, but only time will tell.

In general terms, the 2014 General Licences are not much better than the 2013 General Licences in that many of the previous concerns raised (going back several years!) have still not been addressed. We’ve blogged about this a lot (e.g. see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here) and don’t intend to go over all the points again….not just yet, anyway. We understand that SNH is intending to organise further research in 2014 to address many of the concerns, although they said that when they issued the 2013 General Licences and yet here we are, another year gone by and we’re still waiting for that research.

While we wait, it’s worth you having a look at the responses to the 2014 General Licence consultation – especially the response from the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, who once again are asking for ‘quota systems’ for buzzards, ravens, pine martens and badgers.

Download the PDF here: Consultation responses to General Licences 2014

Naturally, we’ll be watching with interest to see whether SNH has cause to withdraw the use of the General Licences, on the basis that they have ‘reason to believe’ that wild birds have been illegally taken or killed. The enabling paragraph probably cannot be used retrospectively so we’ll just have to wait until we see the next incident of criminal activity, which probably won’t be too far off, and then we’ll see what happens.

 

Gamekeepers put under pressure to use poison, claims retired Angus keeper

A retired gamekeeper whose 50-year career included working on Angus sporting estates has claimed that gamekeepers are being put under pressure to use illegal poison to protect grouse stocks, according to an article in today’s Courier (see here).

Colin Gair, 66, says the situation in Angus has deteriorated in the past two years and he is encouraging other gamekeepers to speak out if they are being asked to use poison.

His comments come after the discovery of ‘Fearnan’, the golden eagle found poisoned on a grouse moor in the Angus Glens in December. Fearnan is the latest victim in a long line of alleged poisoning incidents in the area (see here).

Mr Gair deserves a great deal of credit for his willingness to speak out on a subject that is usually vehemently denied by all connected with the game-shooting industry, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and we applaud his courage.

It’ll be interesting to see whether there’s any response to his claims from certain game- shooting industry organisations that are usually at the forefront of the denials.

UPDATE 10th January 2014: see here

Gamekeeping orgs’ half-witted attempts to blur the truth

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

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

Apparently not.

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

NGO Comments on the RSPB 2013 Birdcrime Report

Saturday 14th Dec 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SGA STATEMENT: RSPB BIRD OF PREY REPORT

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

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

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

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

SGA Chairman’s ignorance could fuel goshawk persecution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gos1