Tag: scottish parliament

Today’s evidence session on licensing of gamebird hunting: Scottish Moorland Group & BASC

This morning the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee took evidence from the Scottish Moorland Group and BASC on the petition to introduce gamebird hunting licencing (see here for background to this petition).

The two witnesses today were Dr Colin Shedden (BASC) and Tim (Kim) Baynes (Scottish Moorland Group, part of Scottish Land & Estates).

kim-colin

The evidence session can be watched on Holyrood TV here and the formal transcript can be read here.

The hearing went pretty much as anticipated, with the main gist being that the two witnesses didn’t think that gamebird hunting licensing was necessary. The ‘evidence’ they used to back up their claim was also predictable.

Dr Shedden asserted that all those who shoot game are already regulated via their shotgun certificates, and that “shotgun certificate holders are among the most law-abiding sector of society and any hint of illegal activity can lead to the right to hold a certificate, and the ability to shoot, being withdrawn“. If only that was true! If Police Scotland did revoke shotgun certificates based on “any hint of illegal activity“, there would be a lot of gamekeepers out of a job!

Tim (Kim) Baynes cherry-picked his way through his ‘supporting evidence’, citing the recent increase in the national golden eagle population (but omitting to mention the consistently low occupancy rate of breeding golden eagles on driven grouse moors in the eastern Highlands – see here) and citing the raptor persecution figures in the Government’s latest wildlife crime report (but omitting to mention that the raptor persecution figures in this report are incomplete as some have been deliberately withheld, rendering any trend analysis a pointless waste of time – see here).

He also claimed that raptor persecution on driven grouse moors was not endemic, as the petitioners had claimed, and he cited the evidence of Assistant Chief Constable Malcolm Graham, who had stated at another parliamentary hearing that wildlife crime reporting levels were NOT the tip-of the iceberg and that Police Scotland was “catching a significant amount of it” [wildlife crime]. What Tim (Kim) forgot to mention was that the quality of ACC Graham’s evidence has been called in to question several times (see here, here and here). He also ‘forgot’ to mention the string of recent scientific publications showing that illegal persecution on driven grouse moors is so rife it is having population-level impacts on a number of species including hen harriers, red kites, peregrines and golden eagles.

He also mentioned several so-called ‘partnership-working initiatives’ in an attempt to paint a picture of productive cooperation – we’ve previously discussed these ‘initiatives’ in detail and not one of them stands up to scrutiny. E.g. Wildlife Estates Scotland (it’s a sham, see our critique here), Heads up for Hen Harriers (it’s a sham, see our critique here), the South Scotland Golden Eagle Project (it’s a sham, see our critique here) and the Eastern Cairngorms Moorland Partnership (it’s a sham, see our critique here).

Tim (Kim) then introduced his ‘four point plan’ which, he said, could “deal with this issue once and for all” (presumably the ‘issue’ he’s referring to is the issue of raptor persecution associated with gamebird hunting). Here’s his plan:

Point 1: “We very much support the continued enforcement of wildlife crime” [legislation], ‘including the proposed increase in wildlife crime penalties‘.

We’d agree with him on Point 1, in principle, although we want to see increased efforts in wildlife crime enforcement because the current levels of enforcement are simply not good enough.

Point 2: “We would ask for support and development of the Wildlife Estates initiative and the other collaborative schemes and projects going on“.

We don’t support Point 2 because it will not address the problem of raptor persecution on game-shooting estates, especially when some members of this scheme have wildlife crime convictions to their name. This ‘initiative’ is, in our opinion, nothing more than a window-dressing opportunity to disguise the on-going persecution of raptors.

Point 3: “The Understanding Predation Project“……”looking at predation and how that can be managed“….”We think that is a very important way of everybody moving forward together“.

We don’t support Point 3, because the Understanding Predation Project is nothing more than an exercise in legitimising the killing of predators for the benefit of game shooting.

Point 4: “We would very much like to see greater cooperation between ourselves, the Raptor Study Groups and the RSPB“.

Point 4 is hilarious – especially when you hear the story behind a group of dedicated raptor workers who have recently been ‘thrown off’ their 30-year study site because they dared to question some of the management practices they’d seen on that Scottish grouse moor (which also just happens to be an accredited member of the Wildlife Estates initiative!). Watch for a scientific publication due out in March 2017 that explains all!

Point 4 is also hilarious when you consider that the new ‘partnership-working’ protocols that Tim (Kim) had referred to later in this evidence session in relation to national bird surveys, actually comprised of landowners wanting to exert control on raptor fieldworkers by making sure they sought landowner permission before visiting survey sites. That type of control is never going to be welcomed by raptor fieldworkers who have huge and legitimate concerns about subsequent disturbance (i.e. persecution) at the nest sites of sensitive Schedule 1 species on some of these estates.

MSPs put a number of questions to the two witnesses, asking for clarification on a few points. Of particular note are the well-informed questions posed by the increasingly impressive Alison Johnstone MSP (Scottish Greens).

Her questions included asking Tim (Kim) to explain the reason behind the low occupancy rate of breeding golden eagles on driven grouse moors in the eastern Highlands in contrast with the very high occupancy rate in western Scotland. His answer was evasive, to say the least, although he did confirm that this low occupancy rate had been the same for decades, despite productivity there (when it happens) being the highest in Scotland….thus (probably unintentionally) confirming that illegal persecution has been going on there, for, er, decades! He also said, “It’s a really complicated picture“. Is it? Seems pretty straightforward to us. We’ll come back to this in a later blog as we’ve got some interesting maps to share.

Alison also asked Tim (Kim) whether the recent report demonstrating the persistence of red kite persecution in the north of Scotland flew in the face of his assertion that raptor persecution was in decline? His response was to avoid answering the specific question and instead he waffled on about condemning wildlife crime.

The Petitions Committee then discussed what to do with the petition now that evidence from both ‘sides’ had been heard, and it was agreed that it would now be passed on to the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform (ECCLR) Committee for further consideration. We don’t know the timescale for that but it is more than likely to feature in the New Year when the ECCLR Committee scrutinises the Government’s most recent report on wildlife crime.

Watch this space.

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

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

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

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

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

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

RSPB persecution review 1994 2014 map

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

RSPB persecution review 1994 2014 land use

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

RSPB persecution review 1994 2014 occupation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012 – 18 confirmed deaths

2013 – 28 confirmed deaths

2014 – 37 confirmed deaths

There’s also this statement:

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

Download the RSPB report here

Media coverage

RSPB press release here

Statement from Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod here

Scottish Moorland Group statement here

BBC news here

STV article here

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

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

Red kite poisoned in Central Scotland – police decide not to publicise

Police Scotland has failed to publicise the illegal poisoning of a red kite which was found dead in central Scotland last July. That’s July 2014 – six months ago!

The only reason this crime has come to our attention is because it is included in the recently-updated quarterly reports by SASA – the Government agency whose job is to analyse carcasses for poisons.

This kite was killed by ingesting the banned pesticide Carbofuran. There are no other details, other than the carcass was recovered in central Scotland and the case is subject to an on-going police investigation.

Why didn’t Police Scotland issue a press statement? Sure, they might have chosen to delay it for a few weeks for operational purposes, e.g. if they were planning a raid on the premises then they wouldn’t want to alert the potential suspects in advance. But six months on and still silent? That’s pathetic.

It’s this kind of cover-up that plays directly into the hands of those who seek to diminish the extent of raptor persecution. If the public is unaware that these crimes are continuing, they’ll be more likely to believe the lies of certain organisations who keep saying that raptor persecution crimes are occurring with less frequency, and that landowners and gamekeepers have cleaned up their acts. If the public believes that, they are less likely to join in calls for greater enforcement/tougher penalties etc. If MSPs don’t hear about this issue from their constituents, they’ll be less likely to push forward any legislative changes. The end result? The raptor-killing will continue with impunity and the raptor-killing criminals will continue to escape justice.

Police Scotland’s silence does absolutely nothing to inspire public confidence in their ability and willingness to tackle wildlife crime. Perhaps they did investigate and perhaps they’ve charged someone who is now awaiting prosecution. Perhaps they did investigate but didn’t find any evidence to link the crime to an individual. Perhaps they did nothing and the file is gathering dust on someone’s desk. Whatever response they did or didn’t make, given the high level of public interest in these crimes and, in this case especially, the dangerously-high toxicity of the poison (fatal to humans), they should have publicised this incident months ago.

We are also interested in whether any General Licence restrictions have been imposed on the land where the kite was found poisoned. We don’t know whether this land is used for game-shooting but we’d make an educated guess that it is, especially given the type of poison involved – Carbofuran is still the gamekeepers’ ‘poison of choice’.

If you remember, SNH now has the power to restrict the use of General Licences, based on a civil burden of proof (i.e. so not reliant on a criminal conviction) ‘where there is evidence to suggest that a wild bird or birds have been either killed, injured or taken or where there has been an attempt to do so other than in accordance with a licence, or where General Licences are being misused‘ [this is a direct quote from the SNH 2015 General Licences].

This new measure was rolled out in October 2014 (see here) and can be back-dated to any offences that have occurred since 1st January 2014.

During the Scottish Parliament’s RACCE committee hearing on 29th October 2014 (see here), Detective Chief Superintendent Robbie Allan of Police Scotland talked about the implementation of this new measure:

“We have set up a structure whereby we will meet SNH on a monthly basis. At that meeting, Police Scotland will inform and notify SNH of any crimes that fit the proposed criteria. SNH will take that information and make an assessment based on it. The first meeting will take place in the first week of November [2014], and it will apply retrospectively to all offences since 1st January [2014].”

So, the first monthly meeting between Police Scotland & SNH was due to take place in early Nov 2014. That’s almost three months ago. This red kite was poisoned in July 2014. It is reasonable to expect, then, that this case has been assessed by SNH and they’ve made a decision whether or not to impose a General Licence restriction.

We just had a look on the SNH website, where it says: ‘Any decision to implement a restriction will be posted on this webpage‘ (see here). Surprise surprise, there isn’t any information about any General Licence restrictions that have been imposed. Does that mean they are not going to impose a restriction for the poisoning of this red kite? Or does it mean they haven’t yet got around to looking at it? Or something else?

Trying to get information from these enforcement bodies is like pulling teeth. Why is it so bloody difficult? Where’s all the ‘accountability’ that they’re so keen on telling us they have but the SSPCA doesn’t have?

Let’s go directly to the Director of Operations at SNH (who makes the ultimate decision on whether a restriction is imposed) and ask him what’s going on with this case and specifically, whether a General Licence restriction has been imposed and if not, why not? Emails to Andrew Bachell: Andrew.Bachell@snh.gov.uk

Red kite photograph by David Tomlinson

Come on, Aileen

Aileen McLeod MSPWe didn’t know what to expect from the newly-appointed Environment Minister when she took on her role a little over a month ago. Dr Aileen McLeod’s political experience had been largely focused on European policy work, although she was clearly highly educated and we knew she’d be well advised by the wildlife crime policy officers in Holyrood. Nevertheless, it would inevitably take time for her to achieve the level of insight and knowledge of her predecessor, Paul Wheelhouse MSP, who had the benefit of two years in office and was beginning to achieve considerable momentum against the raptor killers, until he was pushed out to another department in the Cabinet reshuffle in November.

Obviously, the jury is still out on Dr McLeod’s effectiveness and we need to give her a bit of time to get her bearings, although we fully expect her to adopt the Government’s stated intolerance of wildlife crime and to do everything she can to ensure that the raptor killers are brought to justice.

Two recent statements show that she has a thoughtful and measured approach, although we have cause to question a few of her comments.

First off, she has responded to the concerns of the Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment (RACCE) Committee, who wrote to her (see here) after taking evidence on wildlife crime from Police Scotland, COPFS and the former Environment Minister.

Here is her response: Environment Minister response to RACCE Committee Dec 2014

On the whole, her response is non-contentious and is pointing in the right direction, but she does say a couple of odd things. On the issue of the detection and prosecution of wildlife crime she says:

“Reported crime numbers also reflect not only public awareness of wildlife crime, but also confidence that there will be an appropriate response from the authorities. Police Scotland has worked hard to ensure that consistent structures and resources are in place throughout Scotland and we expect this to produce improved results in wildlife crime reporting“.

We haven’t seen any evidence of this, in fact the complete opposite. We would agree that Police Scotland has been consistent, but not in a good way; consistently poor responses to reports of wildlife crime (with a handful of exceptions) seems to have been the norm for a very long time.

On the subject of the absence of species potentially indicating criminal activity (i.e. the absence of certain raptor species from vast swathes of driven grouse moors) she says:

“We know that there may also be other non-criminal explanations for the absence of species. Nevertheless I agree that this would be useful work for the PAW Scotland Science sub-group to take forward“.

What other non-criminal explanations are there for the absence of certain raptor species from driven grouse moors? All the science (and there has been plenty of it, some dating back almost two decades) indicates a direct link to the illegal persecution of raptors on those moors. Sure, natural factors such as habitat, climate, prey availability, predation etc can and do affect the natural distribution of species, but we’re talking about species that have either ‘disappeared’ from their former natural ranges or their breeding attempts in parts of those ranges consistently fail. It’s no coincidence that these areas just happen to be managed as driven grouse moors.

On the subject of increasing the investigatory powers of the SSPCA she says:

“I am also aware of the need to carefully balance a number of factors such as resources, accountability and proportionality in coming to a decision on whether to extend further powers to the SSPCA as regards wildlife crime“.

‘Proportionality’ is an interesting word. It suggests that the measure of extending the SSPCA’s powers should be fair, reasonable and appropriate. Who would argue that extending the SSPCA’s powers would be a dis-proportionate response to the rising level of wildlife crime in Scotland and Police Scotland’s inability to cope? Well we already know the answer to that – see here and here. The question is, will the Environment Minister consider it a disproportionate measure? We’ll find out soon enough, although if the last sentence of her letter to the RACCE Committee is anything to go by, she’ll do the right thing:

“Tackling wildlife crime is a key priority for the Scottish Government and one that I am keen to take forward robustly in my new role“.

Other statements in her response letter were very encouraging, and we particularly welcome her intention to consider including the locations of illegally placed poison baits and traps on the annual PAW raptor persecution maps. That’s something that we (and others) have been asking for for a long time (e.g. see here).

We were also pleased to see a (diplomatic) dig about Police Scotland’s ridiculous press statement on the cause of the Ross-shire Massacre (here is some background on their idiotic statement, in case you missed it). Dr McLeod says:

“Police Scotland’s press release on 24 October was designed to bring about a reduction in speculation that was widespread across social media on this high profile case. I am confident that lessons will have been learned on the need to be very careful with wording of such communications“.

She went a bit further in a recent statement published in the Scottish Farmer (here), where she announced NFU Scotland as a new member of PAW. In that statement she reiterated that the Ross-shire Massacre was the result of criminal activity. In other words, it wasn’t the result of an accidental poisoning.

 So, all in all a good start from her, with just a couple of questionable statements. Come on, Aileen, let’s see what you can deliver in 2015…

RACCE committee writes to new Environment Minister re: wildlife crime

RACCEYou’ll recall last month that the Scottish Parliament’s cross-party Rural Affairs, Climate Change & Environment (RACCE) Committee took evidence on wildlife crime, following the publication of the Government’s 2013 annual report on wildlife crime in Scotland.

We blogged about the evidence given by Police Scotland and the Crown Office (here) and the evidence from (now former) Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse (here).

We said at the time that the RACCE Committee were a pretty well-informed bunch and, with the publication of their letter to the new Environment Minister Aileen McLeod, we continue to be impressed.

It is clear from their letter that they are no push-over, and that they intend to hold the Minister, as well as Police Scotland and the Crown Office, to account. Good on them!

The letter sets outs their views on the issues that were discussed during the two hearings. These include their continuing concerns about the inconsistent presentation of data in the annual wildlife crime reports; their concerns about recorded wildlife crimes being ‘the tip of the iceberg’ and how this needs to be addressed; continuing concerns about police under-resourcing; and a suggestion that PAW Scotland should include incidents of poison baits and illegal traps in their annual wildlife crime mapping exercise. Excellent stuff.

There is a rather pointed comment about Police Scotland’s last press release on the Ross-shire Massacre, basically agreeing with the general view that their press release was ridiculous (although they’re a bit more diplomatic than that, obviously). Talking of that press release, has anyone had a response from Assistant Chief Constable Malcolm Graham about his claim that other agencies had supported that press release (see here)? We haven’t heard a word from him, even though he was asked for information on 31st October – we’d be interested to know if anyone else has received a reply or if ACC Graham is ignoring everyone? If he is, then we’ll be encouraging you to contact the Information Commissioner to seek a review.

Staying on the Ross-shire Massacre for a minute, there’s also a claim in the RACCE’s letter that Police Scotland undertook “a full review” of the inquiry, including the investigative approach, the media strategy and the forensic investigation, and that “this process has involved partners including RSPB Scotland and the SSPCA”. Really? Disppointingly, the RACCE Committee didn’t ask to see the results of that “full review” and instead just commented that “once the case has concluded, Police Scotland and PAW Scotland are asked to consider what lessons are to be learned for the future”. Let’s be realistic here – this case isn’t going to ‘conclude’ – it’s been nearly nine months since 22 raptors were killed in a mass-poisoning with a banned poison and nobody has been arrested, let alone charged. The lessons need to be learned now, not in three years time when everyone has forgotten about it.

The letter also includes the Committee’s concerns about the poor detection and conviction rates associated with wildlife crime, and suggests that these crimes are “insufficiently prioritised” by COPFS. We’re greatly looking forward to the publication of a forthcoming report that will examine, amongst other issues, the detection and conviction rates of some wildlife crimes in Scotland. The report is due out shortly and apparently there’ll be a presentation on its findings at the BAWC Wildlife Crime Conference in March. Should be interesting.

All in all then, a promising letter from the RACCE Committee and we’ll wait with interest to read the new Environment Minister’s response.

Download the letter here: RACCE letter to Env Minister re Wildlife Crime Dec 2014

Environment Minister gives evidence on wildlife crime to RACCE Committee

Wheelhouse RACCEA couple of weeks ago, Police Scotland and COPFS gave evidence to the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment (RACCE) Committee about wildlife crime (see here).

Last week it was the turn of Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse. The archived video can be watched here and the full transcript can be read here.

So what did we learn? Quite a lot.

1. The Minister is “confident” that surveillance cameras can be used in wildlife crime investigations and the Lord Advocate has made it clear that the option is available to Police Scotland. (Interestingly, Police Scotland were not quite so keen when they were asked about it two weeks ago).

2. The Minister will shortly be announcing a forthcoming pesticide disposal scheme (he made it clear it was not an amnesty) – no further details available.

3. The committee reviewing wildlife crime penalties (led by Prof Poustie) will report back early in the New Year, and not in December as originally planned.

4. The Minister recognises the “wall of silence” that so often prevents the reporting of wildlife crime. Good.

5. Two weeks ago, Police Scotland claimed that the number of reported wildlife crimes was more than just the tip of the iceberg. The Minister disagrees with that and cited the large areas of suitable and yet unoccupied raptor habitat as evidence of widespread unreported wildlife crime. However, he suggested that more research was necessary to understand why raptors may be missing from those areas. Eh? What about the twenty years of high quality research that has shown time and time again the link between driven grouse moor management and raptor persecution?

6. The Minister recognises that the (police) response to every wildlife crime incident isn’t perfect. However, he believes that everyone in the law enforcement community takes wildlife crime seriously. He said that with a straight face.

7. On the new General Licence restrictions, the Minister explained that he was taking a ‘targeted approach’ to try and avoid penalising those who are not involved in wildlife crime. He accepts that the restriction measure could easily be by-passed by someone simply applying for an individual licence, although he maintains that SNH may not issue one – each case will be judged on its merit. He has more faith in SNH than we do but time will tell.

He also said that he expects GL restriction cases to be listed publicly on SNH’s website “on a live basis” because he wants the restriction to be used as a ‘reputational driver’. Good.

He made an interesting statement about who is probably responsible for poisoning birds:

“In most cases in which we find a dead poisoned bird on a landholding, we can be reasonably confident that the poisoning took place on that landholding and that the bird died on the landholding as a result of that poisoning“.

That’s very encouraging to hear.

8. On the idiotic Police Scotland press release about the Ross-shire Massacre, the Minister said “unfortunately” he didn’t have any input into the wording of the statement and he urged the Committee not to read too much into the statement, but instead to focus on the fact that 16 of the 22 dead birds are confirmed to have been poisoned and that a criminal investigation was continuing. You can read between the lines – he didn’t think much of the police statement.

9. On the SSPCA consultation, the Minister said he hadn’t yet made up his mind about whether to increase their investigatory powers and he was waiting for an analysis of the consultation responses before he decided. He expected to receive the analysis “early next year at the latest“.

10. When asked whether he was considering further measures to tackle wildlife crime, the Minister said he didn’t have a definitive timescale but wanted to give the current measures time to take effect. However, he did say that he had already commissioned a review of game-shoot licensing in other countries, in preparation for consideration of further measures. He wants to know what options are available to him should he decide to take a harder line. The review will be undertaken by Prof Poustie as soon as the wildlife crime penalties review has been completed in the New Year. Excellent.

11. The Minister said he would try to incorporate further data in the next wildlife crime annual report, including reports of illegal traps (but with no apparent victim) and poisoned baits (with no apparent victim). Good.

12. Two weeks ago, COPFS claimed that vicarious liability was already proving to be an effective deterrent against raptor crime (based on what the landowners had been saying). The Minister disagreed, citing on-going wildlife crime as a clear indication that not everyone is deterred by the threat of vicarious liability. He thinks that may change if/when there is a successful VL conviction. Good.

All in all, we think the Minister did pretty well. He may be a bit too light-handed and cautious for many of us, but it’s clear that he has taken a personal interest in addressing wildlife crime, he’s incredibly well-informed, he’s not fooled by the cries of denial from the wildlife killers, and his measures are heading in the right direction, albeit slowly. He thinks the GL restrictions will be the most important step in the process but we disagree. His defining moment will come when he makes the decision on whether to increase the SSPCA’s powers. That decision, and that decision alone, will tell us all we need to know about how seriously committed this Government is to tackling wildlife crime.

Ross-shire Massacre: MSP calls for review of police investigation

As the Ross-shire Massacre fiasco rolls into its eighth month, one MSP is making a stand.

Dave Thompson MSP (SNP: Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) has called on Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to undertake a review in to the police handling of this investigation. Well done, that man!

The police investigation into one of the most high profile mass raptor poisoning crimes in decades has blundered along for far too long and is fully deserving of public scrutiny, as is the accompanying police media strategy. Rather than providing clear and timely information, their strategy has been to release a series of untimely, misleading and willfully ambiguous statements that have done anything but inform. Indeed, these statements have simply led to more and more outlandish speculation and a growing sense of frustration and anger. Given how keen Police Scotland are on “public accountability” (e.g. see here), they’ll no doubt welcome a review of their handling of this case.

Dave Thompson MSP is a member of the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment (RACCE) Committee, who recently heard evidence from two senior Police Scotland representatives about the Ross-shire Massacre (see here). It seems he was as unimpressed with their answers as we were.

He said: “It would be useful if a full review of the investigation process was carried out. It would go a long way to allaying any fears the general public may have but also, in the interests of transparency, such a review would take away any lingering confusion about how these great birds of prey met their demise.

“This is why I have written to Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill to request that a review of the investigation process takes place and why I will be making sure the Lord Advocate is copied into any correspondence on the matter“.

Dave Thompson MSP formally opening the Tollie Red Kite feeding station in 2012, assisted by Alex Matheson (Brahan Estate) and George Campbell (RSPB Regional Director). [RSPB Scotland photo]

Dave Thompson MSP

 

Want to see what an intensively driven grouse moor looks like?

Then look no further than Chris Townsend’s latest blog about the Eastern Highlands, complete with photographs, here.

As Chris says, “A savaged, stripped, blasted land“.

East Highlands Devastation Chris Townsend

Meanwhile, the Scottish Moorland Group (part of Scottish Land & Estates and chaired by Mr Leadhills himself, Andrew Hopetoun), has submitted a briefing note in preparation for a forthcoming meeting of the Scottish Parliament’s Rural Affairs, Climate Change and Environment Committee. This meeting will take place on Wednesday 4th June and will be discussing the newly-published report from the Land Reform Review Group (we blogged about it here), which places some focus on the future of Scotland’s massive sporting estates.

According to the Scottish Moorland Group’s briefing note, Scottish grouse moors provide the following:

  • Land-based businesses working with nature to contribute more to Scotland’s prosperity; and
  • Responsible stewardship of Scotland’s natural resources delivering more benefits to Scotland’s people.

Yes, that’s really what it says. In fact there are seven whole pages of this guff. You can read it for yourself (pages 23-30): RACCE_Meeting_Papers_04_06_2014

Funnily enough, there’s no mention of the rampant and illegal killing of raptors that has been taking place for decades on these moors, so much so that it is having a population-level impact on several species, especially the golden eagle and the hen harrier. You don’t get population-level effects from a few one-off poisoning incidents – it has to be killing on an industrial scale to have this sort of effect….

Liam McArthur’s parliamentary questions answered (raptor crime in Leadhills area)

Liam McArthur MSPLast month, Liam McArthur MSP posed a series of parliamentary questions following our report on the poisoned peregrine found in the Leadhills area of South Lanarkshire (see here).

His four questions have now been answered; two by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill, and two by Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse:

Question S4W-20745: Liam McArthur, Orkney Islands, Scottish Liberal Democrats, Date Lodged: 15/04/2014

To ask the Scottish Government what steps Police Scotland is taking to ensure that its staff are aware of their responsibilities regarding the protection of protected species.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (15/05/2014):

The training of wildlife crime officers is a matter solely for the Chief Constable. It is not appropriate for Scottish Ministers to seek to intervene on operational policing matters.

I can advise however that since Police Scotland came into being on 1 April 2013, there have been significant changes to the structure and training for wildlife crime officers.

The strategic lead for wildlife crime which sits in the Specialist Crime Division is held by the Assistant Chief Constable. A Detective Chief Superintendent holds the portfolio lead and the post provides essential direction and governance around strategic issues relating to wildlife crime prevention and investigation.

A full time national Wildlife Crime Co-ordinator at Detective Sergeant level provides engagement with national issues relating to coordination, policy, performance and training, and supports the Detective Chief Superintendent.

In each of the 14 territorial divisions there are wildlife crime liaison officers who are supported by a Superintendent (or above). Wildlife crime officer posts can be either full or part-time and deal with crime prevention and investigation when required for operational policing issues.

It is important to highlight that the investigation of wildlife crime is not the exclusive preserve of dedicated staff, and a variety of investigative and intelligence resources and tactics are brought to bear on such matters, from local and national policing.

Our comment: This is basically a cut and paste response from the response he’s just given to Claire Baker MSP. We keep seeing this statement: “It is not appropriate for Scottish Ministers to seek to intervene on operational policing matters”, but hang on a minute, didn’t the Environment Minister ‘seek to intervene’ only ten months ago when he instructed the Lord Advocate to have a word with COPFS and Police Scotland ‘to ensure law enforcement utilises all investigative tools at their disposal in the fight against wildlife crime’? (see here). What’s that if it isn’t an intervention?

Question S4W-20746: Liam McArthur, Orkney Islands, Scottish Liberal Democrats, Date Lodged: 15/04/2014

To ask the Scottish Government whether it will hold an inquiry into reports that Police Scotland told a member of the public that the poisoning of a peregrine falcon in the Leadhills area was not a police matter.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (15/05/2014):

Police Scotland is committed to investigating wildlife crime and have confirmed that on this occasion well established protocols and processes were adhered to in order to allow the bird to be recovered successfully. As a result of this, and the subsequent analysis carried out by Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture identified that the bird had been poisoned, Police Scotland is now working in cooperation with both RSPB and National Wildlife Crime Unit to fully investigate this crime.

In any given case, police call handlers must consider the information they are given at the time of the call and not all reported incidents may be crimes. Police Scotland has also confirmed that no official complaint has been received from the reporter of the original incident.

Our comment: The police call handler told the member of the public (who was reporting this dead peregrine that had been found in suspicious circumstances in an area notorious for raptor crime) that it wasn’t a police matter. That is a fact. The police response was not in adherence with ‘well established protocols and processes’, as Mr MacAskill claims, unless those protocols and processes include ignoring a suspected wildlife crime. The only reason this poisoned peregrine was recovered successfully was because the member of the public bothered to call the RSPB, who then attended and collected the corpse. If the member of the public had not bothered to call the RSPB, this poisoned bird would not have been picked up nor recorded in the wildlife crime stats. That is also a fact. Police Scotland screwed up on this one, and rather than admit it and ensure they have procedures in place to stop it happening again, they are claiming success. That’s not very impressive. And they wonder why the public is losing (has already lost?) confidence in their ability to cope with wildlife crime?!

Question S4W-20747: Liam McArthur, Orkney Islands, Scottish Liberal Democrats, Date Lodged: 15/04/2014

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it is taking to combat illegal raptor persecution in the Leadhills area.

Answered by Paul Wheelhouse (12/05/2014):

The Leadhills area has been identified as a poisoning ‘hotspot’ in the maps that are published annually by the Scottish Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime. There have also been incidents in the area involving illegal shooting of raptors.

Operational policing and the targeting of enforcement activity in any specific area is a matter solely for Police Scotland.

The Scottish Government works closely with the police, conservation groups and landowners through the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW) Scotland. The PAW Scotland Raptor Group has established a short-life working group tasked with developing a clear message that raptor persecution must stop now. The message will have the explicit backing of all PAW partners and be aimed in particular at those areas where raptor persecution is most persistent.

See also my response to S4W-20748 on 12 May 2014 which sets out the additional steps being taken by the Scottish Government and partners to combat illegal raptor persecution.

Our comments: Oh brilliant, here comes the PAW Raptor Scotland Group to save the day, once they’ve decided how to ‘develop a clear message that raptor persecution must stop now’. Is Wheelhouse really so stupid? The PAW Scotland Raptor Group has been established since 2009 (formerly called the Scottish Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group). They’ve had five (yes, five) years to develop a clear message that raptor persecution must stop! Why the hell do they have to form a ‘working group’ to come up with a few lines?? It’s simple, isn’t it? STOP ILLEGALLY PERSECUTING RAPTORS NOW. There, that’ll do it. Although perhaps when you realise which organisations are represented on this group (see here) it’ll become apparent why they’ve achieved so little in so long. We’ve been particularly scathing of this group before (see here) and we’ve seen no reason to change that view.

Question S4W-20748: Liam McArthur, Orkney Islands, Scottish Liberal Democrats, Date Lodged: 15/04/2014

To ask the Scottish Government whether there is sufficient evidence to assess the effectiveness of the new enforcement measures to tackle raptor persecution announced by the Minister for Environment and Climate Change on 1 July 2013.

Answered by Paul Wheelhouse (09/05/2014):

There is not yet sufficient evidence to assess the effectiveness of the new measures announced on 1 July 2013. A report on the review of penalties is due by the end of the year and the changes to the general licences will be fully implemented by Scottish Natural Heritage over the next few months. The use by the police of the full range of investigative techniques in raptor persecution cases is an operational matter, however it is unlikely that results would be seen less than 12 months after the announcement of new measures.

Our comment: It’s becoming more and more apparent that Wheelhouse won’t be pinned down to give a time scale for how long he’s prepared to wait to see whether these new measures have any effect. Is he thinking in terms of months or years? A lot will probably depend on the number of raptor crimes that are uncovered during the rest of this year, and particularly, the public’s response to those crimes. We must maintain this pressure on the government to act.

Well done again to MSPs Claire Baker and Liam McArthur for keeping these issues at the forefront of parliamentary business.

Claire Baker’s parliamentary questions answered

Claire Baker MSP 2Last month, Claire Baker MSP, Scottish Labour’s Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs & the Environment, asked some pointed parliamentary questions about the on-going issue of raptor persecution in Scotland (see here), as did Liam McArthur MSP (see here).

Answers to Liam McArthur’s questions were due yesterday. So far, only two of the four have been answered. We’re waiting for responses to the last two before we blog about them.

Claire Baker’s three questions have been answered, two by Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse and one by the Cabinet Secretary for Justice, Kenny MacAskill. Unfortunately there’s nothing we haven’t already heard, over and over and over again:

Question S4W-20654: Claire Baker, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 08/04/2014.

To ask the Scottish Government what steps it plans to take in response to the illegal killing of birds of prey in addition to its consultation on the powers of the Scottish SPCA.

Answered by Paul Wheelhouse (08/05/2014):

The Scottish Government takes the view that the detection and prosecution of offenders is the best response to the illegal killing of birds of prey. To that end we will continue to work with Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service to build and strengthen the enforcement effort in this area of the law. We will also work with other members of the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime to raise awareness of the serious consequences of wildlife crime and the damaging effects on Scotland’s reputation, environment and economy.

We aim to work with government and law enforcement partners to explore further options to detect and remove from the environment the dangerous poisons used to kill native wildlife. Officials are exploring options to build on an existing private sector chargeable pesticides disposal scheme (‘Project RCD’).

Additional measures to protect raptors were announced in July 2013:

Scottish Natural Heritage to restrict the use of general licences where they judge raptor persecution has taken place (there is now an enabling paragraph in the new General Licence for 2014).

A review of penalties for wildlife crime offences, which will report before the end of 2014.

A commitment from the Lord Advocate to encourage the full range of investigative techniques by the police against raptor crime.

The Scottish Government will continue to seek the full implementation and effectiveness of these measures.

Question S4W-20655: Claire Baker, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 08/04/2014.

To ask the Scottish Government, in light of the Minister for Environment and Climate Change’s comment in his letter to the chief executive of Scottish Land & Estates dated 26 February 2014 [which we revealed in an FOI here] that “despite all our efforts, there remains an element of sporting managers and owners who continue to flout the law and defy public opinion”, whether it will conduct a review of the licensing and other arrangements for regulating game bird shooting in other countries, with a view to implementing stronger management and regulation.

Answered by Paul Wheelhouse (06/05/2014):

The Scottish Government announced a package of measures in July 2013. These were a review of the penalties for wildlife crime, a restriction on the use of general licences and encouragement for the police to use the full range of investigative techniques at their disposal to deal with wildlife crime. We also introduced the vicarious liability provisions in the Wildlife and Natural Environment Act in 2012. The Scottish Government remains of the view that the measures have the capacity to help prevent, deter and detect wildlife crime. However, the measures must be given time to be fully implemented and for them to have an effect.

Nevertheless, we have been clear that if it becomes apparent that further measures are required we will take whatever action we consider necessary, including examining whether stronger management and regulation of game bird shooting is appropriate.

Question S4W-20656: Claire Baker, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 08/04/2014.

To ask the Scottish Government what recent discussions the (a) Cabinet Secretary for Justice and (b) Minister for Environment and Climate Change has had with the Chief Constable regarding resources and training for wildlife crime officers.

Answered by Kenny MacAskill (07/05/2014):

There have been no discussions between the Cabinet Secretary for Justice and the Chief Constable regarding resources and training for wildlife crime officers.

The resources deployed and the training of wildlife crime officers are matters solely for the Chief Constable. It is not appropriate for Scottish Ministers to seek to intervene on operational policing matters.

I can advise however that since Police Scotland came into being on 1 April 2013, there have been significant changes to the structure and training for wildlife crime officers.

The strategic lead for wildlife crime which sits in the Specialist Crime Division is held by the Assistant Chief Constable. A Detective Chief Superintendent holds the portfolio lead and the post provides essential direction and governance around strategic issues relating to Wildlife Crime prevention and investigation.

A full time national Wildlife Crime Coordinator at Detective Sergeant level provides engagement with national issues relating to coordination, policy, performance and training, and supports the Detective Chief Superintendent.

In each of the 14 territorial divisions there are wildlife crime liaison officers who are supported by a Superintendent (or above). Wildlife crime officer posts can be either full or part-time and deal with crime prevention and investigation when required for operational policing issues.

It is important to highlight that the investigation of wildlife crime is not the exclusive preserve of dedicated staff, and a variety of investigative and intelligence resources and tactics are brought to bear on such matters, from local and national policing.