Tag: scottish gamekeepers association

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

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

SGA Gamefair 005a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SGA Gamefair 006a

 

Scottish Raptor Study Group ‘intrigued’ by SGA’s eagle nests claim

scotsman_logo_200There’s an interesting letter in The Scotsman today (see here) from the Scottish Raptor Study Group (SRSG). It’s been written in response to the SGA’s claim, last week, that there are ‘at least 55 active golden eagle nests’ on grouse moors in eastern and central Scotland (see here).

Patrick Stirling-Aird of the SRSG writes:

“The Scottish Raptor Study Groups (SRSGs) agree with the Scottish Gamekeepers Association chairman Alex Hogg that land management of the right sort can contribute to golden eagle conservation (your report, 6 July).

SRSGs are intrigued by Mr Hogg’s remark that his members in the keepered grouse areas of east and central Scotland have identified at least 55 active eagle nests still in place since 2003. SRSGs will be interested in a comparison of this figure with their own detailed survey records, assessing golden eagle territory occupation and breeding attempts (successful or otherwise) in these areas throughout the ten seasons 2004 to 2013. The comparison will focus particularly on ground still being managed as commercial grouse moor. This should establish whether or not there is a discrepancy (and if there is, the extent of this discrepancy) between SRSGs’ own comprehensively gathered data and Mr Hogg’s figure of 55 active eagle nests.

Historical context is the marked decrease in territory occupation in the areas concerned (revealed by the 2003 census) from the substantially higher levels of occupation recorded in the previous golden eagle national survey years of 1992 and 1982″.

We look forward to seeing the results of this comparison.

Gamekeepers and golden eagles: the facts

The Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association issued a press release this morning about how great gamekeepers are for golden eagle conservation.

They produced the following map in an attempt to suggest that golden eagles are doing well on grouse moors in central and eastern Scotland:

SGA eagle bollocks

They claim that there are at least 55 active golden eagle nests in the keepered grouse areas of East and Central Scotland, based on the results of a ‘survey’ they did, presumably of gamekeepers.

To the uninformed, this map suggests that golden eagles are breeding at a relatively high density on grouse moors in this region. But don’t be fooled! What this map doesn’t show, because of the ridiculous scale at which it has been produced, is the number of vacant golden eagle territories on grouse moors in East and Central Scotland. (It also ignores the grouse moors of Southern Scotland, probably because breeding golden eagles in that area are virtually non-existent, with just a couple of exceptions, but let’s just brush over that shall we?).

There is no disputing that golden eagles do breed successfully on some Scottish grouse moors. That is a fact. There are a number of enlightened land owners who welcome golden eagles on their grouse moors and do an excellent job in providing them with a home and a good supply of food. We’ve blogged about a few of them before and we applaud their efforts. The problem is, there aren’t enough of them. That is also a fact. The best way to demonstrate this is to look at the level of occupancy of golden eagle territories in different parts of Scotland. The following data are from the 2008 Golden Eagle Conservation Framework – a government-funded comprehensive scientific review of golden eagle ecology and conservation in Scotland:

Golden Eagle Territory Occupancy:

Western Isles = 91%

Western Highlands = 89.5%

Argyll West & Islands = 81.5%

Central Highlands = 48%

Cairngorms Massif = 42.4%

North East Glens = 17.6%

That’s pretty stark. Golden eagles in areas of western Scotland (with little if any grouse shooting interests) occupied over 80% of the available territories; golden eagles in the central and eastern Highlands (grouse moor hell) had an occupancy rate of below 50%, and in one region (North East Glens) it was a shocking 17.6%. Why is it that all those available golden eagle territories in the East and Central uplands are vacant? What’s stopping them from breeding there? Hmmm, whatever could it be?

The SGA press release also talks about the ‘stability’ of the golden eagle population over the last 20 years, presumably to make you think that golden eagles are doing ok so what’s all the fuss about? What they fail to say is that that ‘stability’ of approx 430 pairs masks some very big differences in regional abundance. For example, there has been a substantial increase of golden eagles in the Western Isles over the last ~20 years, largely thanks to a reduction in illegal persecution in that region. In contrast, there has been a significant decrease in the number of golden eagles in the central, eastern and southern uplands (hence all those vacant territories), thanks largely to illegal persecution on driven grouse moors. That is a fact, backed up by a suite of scientific peer-reviewed studies. That’s why the population appears to be ‘stable’ – because all the losses in the east are being counterbalanced by the gains in the west.

What the SGA also fail to mention is that the ‘stable’ population of ~430 pairs is nowhere near what the population could be. It’s been estimated that there is enough habitat for at least 700 golden eagle territories in Scotland – the population of ~430 pairs is being suppressed at an unnaturally low level and failing to expand into some areas of its former range. Why? Illegal persecution. Read the Conservation Framework (below) if you want to examine the details. The facts are all there.

Here is a map from the Framework report, showing the conservation status of golden eagles in 2003. Green areas = region in favourable conservation status; Amber areas = region in unfavourable conservation status but failed in only 1 test (i.e. a marginal failure); Red areas = region in unfavourable conservation status, with failure in more than one test. It’s pretty bloody obvious in which areas golden eagles are in trouble – yep, that’s right, areas managed for driven grouse shooting. Another fact.

GE conservation status 2003

There was another element to the SGA’s press statement this morning. They claimed they had recently expelled four (unidentified) members from the SGA club for wildlife offences. If they have done this then it is very welcome news and we applaud them for booting out those criminals. It has been something we’ve been asking them to do for a very long time and hopefully this will be the start of a growing trend.

BBC News article here

Scotsman article here

RSPB response here

Golden Eagle Conservation Framework here

UPDATE 24 January 2014: See here for details of the VACANT golden eagle sites on upland grouse moors.

New petition: SNH, do not licence buzzard culling in Scotland

buzzard 3Following on from the frankly outrageous situation south of the border, where it has been revealed that the UK government’s conservation agency (Natural England) has secretly issued licences, without supporting scientific evidence, to destroy native buzzards’ nests & eggs to protect superabundant foreign gamebirds reared for sport-shooting (see here), a new petition has started in Scotland to let the Scottish government’s conservation agency (Scottish Natural Heritage) know that such a move won’t be tolerated in this country.

Gamekeepers and landowners in Scotland have been lobbying the Scottish government for these licences for at least ten years. For example here is a news report from 2003. We have blogged extensively about the continuous efforts of these organisations who are seemingly hell-bent on continuing the Victorian tradition of killing predators; so far their efforts have been thwarted but for how much longer?

In January this year we blogged about a new scientific paper that discussed how buzzards are only a minor source of pheasant mortality – road traffic, for example, is far more important (see here). We also highlighted in that blog how SGA Chairman Alex Hogg admitted losing 500 pheasant poults to hypothermia last year – perhaps an infestation of buzzards blocked out the sun and caused the low temperatures that killed those young birds.

In March this year we blogged about how Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse had recently told the SGA that licences to cull raptors would not be issued for the forseeable future due to the on-going incidents of criminal raptor persecution (see here). Since then, there have been a number of persecution incidents – some publicised by the police, some not. There’s one particularly relevant incident that happened before Easter, where, according to local sources, a buzzard was caught in what has been described as an illegal gin trap. It didn’t survive. Why haven’t Police Scotland publicised this incident? In whose interests is it to keep this crime a secret?

It’s a pretty sad state of affairs that this issue is still at the top of the agenda, in this, the so-called Year of Natural Scotland.

Please sign the petition here

You might also want to email Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse to let him know your views on the issue of buzzard licensing in Scotland and ask him whether he’s aware of the buzzard that was caught in an illegal trap in Scotland more than eight weeks ago:  ministerforenvironment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

The SGA’s solution to climate change?…..kill predators

channel 4 newsIf you missed Channel 4 News this evening you really should watch the playback clip below – it’s hilarious.

As part of a Channel 4 News series, Jon Snow has been reporting on a new report written by some of the country’s top scientists on how climate change is affecting wildlife and how it’s likely to affect it in the future if management regimes are not adapted to address the issue.

Amongst other interviews, Snow discusses the report with Des Thompson of SNH and Allan Hodgson, an SGA member from Tomatin. Des Thompson does well and gives a sensible and concise explanation of what’s been happening and how authoritative the report is, based on the research of hundreds of scientists. Unsurprisingly, Hodgson doesn’t seem to have comprehended the whole climate change thing at all, and instead he talks about the need for “more control of protected predators“. Eh?

Hodgson’s interview technique doesn’t have the polished finish of his media-savvy colleague Alex Hogg – he looks decidedly uncomfortable throughout and what’s his right hand doing? – but he does live up to the standard of intelligence we’ve come to expect from the SGA. It was a masterstroke of Channel 4 news to invite him on.

Watch the interview available here for the next seven days. The relevant clip is called Britain’s countryside in crisis – debate.

More on convicted gamekeeper Petrie

Petrie's middenFollowing on from yesterday’s blog entry about the conviction of ‘qualified’ gamekeeper Brian Petrie (here), more information has emerged.

The estate where Petrie committed his crimes has been reported by the Herald (see here) as Logie Estate, near Forres. The Herald article says: “The estate was not aware of Petrie’s actions and had cooperated fully  in the SSPCA’s investigation“. We’ve been told by a local informant who wishes to remain anonymous that Petrie had previously operated a sporting lease (for pheasant shooting) on Logie Estate but apparently did not have the lease at the time his offences were commited. In other words, it seems he had no permission to be setting snares on Logie Estate at that time.

We asked yesterday whether Petrie was a member of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association. A statement on the SGA website this morning suggests he was not (see here) and the SGA has strongly condemned his criminal activities (good). They also go on to try and justify the use of snares but clearly miss the point – yes of course if you remove predators then their prey will increase, probably to artificially-high levels – that’s primary school stuff – but the debate is not whether predators should be removed (that’s a whole other argument!) but it’s the way in which they’re removed, and the welfare implications, that are key. For those interested in the snaring debate we recommend OneKind’s SnareWatch web page here. This site includes some useful reports about the use of snares and also provides a facility for the public to report the illegal use of snares. We’d also point readers to our earlier blog entry about how to recognise an illegally-set snare here.

The next case against gamekeepers accused of alleged snare crimes will be heard at Dornoch Sheriff Court next Monday, which is another hearing in the case against three gamekeepers from the Morvich Estate in Sutherland (see here and here for previous blog entries).

Zanussi engineers called in to help SGA stuck on spin cycle

spin2There’s an article in the Scotsman today about Scottish gamekeepers offering to help the fire service put out fires, started by, er,…well it depends on whose opinion you accept.

According to the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, the fires weren’t caused by gamekeepers involved in muirburning activities. Oh no, apparently they were caused by ‘camp fires getting out of control’ and ‘garden fires’.

However, last week the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service clearly thought that landowners were at least partly responsible as they issued a threat to prosecute those involved with muirburning activities in unsuitable conditions (see here). Why issue such a warning if they believed the fires were caused by careless campers and gung-ho gardeners?

Is the point of the SGA’s press release an attempt to portray a ‘caring sharing’ attitude, impressing us all by riding to the rescue as the fourth emergency service to put right the misdeeds of others? Dream on.

Later in the article the SGA accuses the RSPB of ‘scaremongering’ after they predicted the wildfires could potentially have a huge impact on golden eagle breeding success this year. This is quite an amusing accusation considering the content of the SGA’s Hogg Blog this week (see here), which includes this statement:

“Many interesting subjects have been spoken about [with his chums at various meetings], not least the huge numbers of badgers, ravens and buzzards which are having a detrimental effect on our wildlife and livestock“.

Er, and the evidence for this ‘detrimental effect’ is what, exactly? And they call the RSPB the scaremongerers!

SGA chairman Hogg is further quoted in the Scotsman article talking about the golden eagle population and he implies that there’s no need for concern about its conservation status. He trots out the usual line about the population’s ‘stability’ at around 420-440 pairs but fails to acknowledge that this ‘stability’ is wholly misleading, given the accepted scientific evidence shows that the species only has favourable conservation status in 3 of 16 regions, the population is being kept suppressed by illegal persecution, and there should be a minimum of 716 pairs overall (we blogged about this the other day (here) and we’ll keep blogging about it for as long as the spin cycle lasts).

Scotsman article 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.

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

Deeside golden eagle fiasco rumbles on as SGA release their ‘report’

The shambolic investigation into the death of the Deeside golden eagle last year continues (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here for our previous blogs about this appalling case).

This morning, the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association released a media statement and their investigatory ‘report’ into what they think happened to this eagle. It’s death was probably the result of a terrible accident, apparently. They say they only released their report because they became aware that it had been the subject of Freedom of Information requests to the Scottish Government.

At this stage, we are only posting their media statement, their ‘report’, and the RSPB’s response. We will be discussing the case as a whole, including the SGA’s conclusions, in a later blog, as we are awaiting responses from several FoI requests that potentially could be quite illuminating.

SGA media statement download: SGA RELEASE REPORT INTO EAGLE DEATH[1]

SGA investigatory report download: SGA Report, eagle death, Deeside[1]

RSPB media response:

RSPB Scotland responds to Scottish Gamekeepers Association eagle report

Responding to a statement released this morning by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA), Duncan Orr-Ewing, Head of Species and Land Management at RSPB Scotland, said:

“We reject absolutely these unprofessional assertions of the SGA in today’s press release concerning the case of the dead golden eagle found on Deeside in May 2012. Our previous media statement followed proper discussion and approval from the police, and was in full accordance with our joint working protocol. The official post mortem report concluded that the bird had suffered two broken legs due to trauma “that could be consistent with an injury caused by a spring type trap” and that the severity of these injuries “would prevent the bird from being able to take off.”

This is a rather desperate statement from the SGA, which seemingly does more to reveal their true 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).

The illegal killing of golden eagles in Scotland is still a serious conservation issue, undermining the health of their population, and bringing international shame to our country. Over the past few years there have been a number of appalling cases involving the criminal killing of golden eagles, some of which have only come to light following the use of satellite tag technology. Rather than seeking excuses, we believe that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association’s efforts would be better directed at tackling those within their sector who still encourage such outdated practices”.  

The dead golden eagle