Tag: scottish gamekeepers association

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

 

“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.