Tag: scottish parliament

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.

What we learned from today’s Parliamentary debate on raptor persecution

ScottishParliamentChamberEarlier today there was a debate in the Scottish Parliamentary Chamber about eradicating raptor persecution from Scotland. The debate stemmed from a motion lodged by Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse (see here for details of that motion and several suggested amendments).

We very much welcome the Environment Minister’s action of bringing this topic to the attention of Parliament, although given the recent foul catalogue of current crimes against raptors, and the enormous public response to these on-going crimes, he had to be seen to be doing something.

The debate lasted for an hour and twenty minutes, beginning with an opening address from the Minister during which he expressed his “anger, revulsion and utter frustration” that these crimes continue in 21st Century Scotland. He ran through a list of previous measures brought in since 2007, some of which are still to be fully implemented. He said he understood the calls from some quarters for further measures to be introduced now, but insisted that more time was needed to allow these measures to take effect. Here’s one quote that we’ll be reminding him of in due course when we see the next inevitable incident, and the next, and the next:

“If and when we judge it necessary, I am committed to taking further action. If that involves licensing certain types of businesses, then we will do so“.

He’s made this commitment before, on many occasions, and there are only so many times that he can make such a commitment before he will be forced to actually follow up his words with action.

During his opening speech he was questioned by Liam McArthur MSP about the alleged police response to the poisoned peregrine incident at Leadhills (see here for info on that incident). The Minister’s response:

“We do believe proper procedures were followed“.

Really? How interesting. We look forward to reading the full written response that is now due about this incident following the emails that were sent to him by RPS blog readers in early April. [Incidentally, we haven’t yet received a response – if anyone else has, we’d be interested in reading it]. We’ll also be paying close attention to his written answers to the parliamentary questions that were raised about this issue by Claire Baker MSP and Liam McArthur MSP.

One significant point he made was that proceedings have commenced in the first vicarious liability case at Stranraer Sheriff Court. We believe this case relates to the Glasserton & Physgill Estates buzzard poisoning case in June last year, where gamekeeper and SGA member Peter Bell was convicted of several poisoning offences (see here). The news that this vicarious liability prosecution is going ahead is excellent news and we await the outcome with great interest.

There were a number of other MSPs who spoke during this debate, with many of them being strongly supportive of the consultation to increase the SSPCA’s investigatory powers, and a number of them expressing concerns about the ability of Police Scotland to prioritise wildlife crime.  Dennis Robertson MSP demonstrated a refreshingly sceptical view of the SGA and their claimed attempts to eradicate raptor persecution.

Talking of the SGA, their parliamentary cheerleader, Jamie McGrigor MSP, gave a rousing but wholly irrelevant speech about the SGA’s Year of the Wader project, and mentioned the SGA’s briefing document for today’s debate in which they apparently call for an investigation into the cause of wildlife crime, i.e. the old ‘too many’ raptors routine. Perhaps they mis-read the title of today’s debate as ‘Eradicating Raptors from Scotland’. At one point, Mr McGrigor announced:

“Wildlife crime is being perpetrated by a very few individuals, rather than any sector of the Scottish countryside“.

Oh dear. He clearly needs to go back and look at the statistics of where the majority of raptor persecution incidents take place [on land managed for game-shooting] and the occupation/interests of the majority of those convicted for these crimes [gamekeepers].

Mr McGrigor also gave a surprising commentary on the possible cause of the Ross-shire Massacre, in which he suggested that the “hand-fed” (?!!) red kites at Tollie Red Kite feeding station may have been fed contaminated food. He did admit this was based purely on rumour but we were surprised that such speculation on a live police investigation would be allowed during a parliamentary debate.

The Environment Minister ended the debate by saying that he was looking into a poisons amnesty. In our view, a total waste of time and effort – it’s been done before with little, if any, effect. Besides, some of these poisons (e.g. Carbofuran) have been banned since 2001 – that’s 13 years ago – how many more chances are these criminals going to be given to comply with the law? The one saving grace of an amnesty is the potential for anyone found to be in possession of poisons AFTER the amnesty has passed would then face a more severe penalty. That’d be good, if only we could believe that a severe penalty would be handed down. The Minister did mention that there is currently an academic review being undertaken to review the penalties for wildlife crimes and the authors of that review are expected to report in December this year.

Video footage of the debate is available here for about a month [starts at 1:29; ends at 2:49].

The official transcript of the debate can be read here: Minutes of debate: eradicating raptor persecution 6 May 2014

Debate in Scottish Parliament today: eradicating raptor persecution from Scotland

ScottishParliamentChamberA debate will be held in Chamber today under the heading: Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland.

The debate will be shown live on Holyrood TV (link below) and for those who can’t watch it live, we’ll add the video archive in due course.

The debate stems from a Parliamentary Motion submitted by Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse last week:

Motion S4M-09916: Paul Wheelhouse, South Scotland, Scottish National Party, Date Lodged: 01/05/2014

Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland

That the Parliament recognises the impact of wildlife crime in Scotland and the potential strain that this places on Scotland’s reputation; welcomes the Scottish Government’s determination to tackle wildlife crime in Scotland; supports the work of the Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime; welcomes the introduction of vicarious liability in wildlife crime in 2011 and the announcement in July 2013 of the review of wildlife crime penalties, the introduction of restrictions on general licences and the enforcement work being taken forward by Police Scotland; unreservedly condemns the appalling poisoning incident in Ross-shire that has killed at least 20 red kites and buzzards; recognises that these birds are a critical part of Scotland’s biodiversity and a key element in the growing wildlife tourism sector; expresses concern about the very worrying disappearance of the first sea eagle chick born from the reintroduced sea eagles on the east coast; considers that an update on the fight against wildlife crime is now timely, and welcomes agencies redoubling efforts to work together to protect Scotland’s remarkable wildlife.

The Presiding Officer has accepted the following amendment to this motion from Claire Baker MSP, who is smart enough to recognise that congratulatory back-slapping isn’t enough and that more action needs to be taken:

Motion S4M-09916.3: Claire Baker, Mid Scotland and Fife, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 02/05/2014

Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland

As an amendment to motion S4M-09916 in the name of Paul Wheelhouse (Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland), leave out from first “welcomes” to “Police Scotland” and insert “believes that the commitment to tackle wildlife crime is shared across the Parliament; acknowledges the work undertaken by the Scottish Government and its relevant bodies and partners in working to tackle wildlife crime, including the review of wildlife crime penalties and the consultation for increased powers for the Scottish SPCA; however believes that the latest wildlife crimes show the urgent need for further action in Scotland; calls on the Scottish Government to conduct a study of licensing and game bird legislation in other countries with a view to working with other parties to review wildlife crime legislation in Scotland”.

There were two other amendments lodged. One came from Liam McArthur MSP calling for more measures to enable a robust pursuit of raptor-killing criminals:

Motion S4M-09916.2: Liam McArthur, Orkney Islands, Scottish Liberal Democrats, Date Lodged: 02/05/2014

Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland

As an amendment to motion S4M-09916 in the name of Paul Wheelhouse (Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland), insert at end “, and believes that Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service should work to ensure that this increased effort will lead to more resources for wildlife crime officers and specialist prosecutors to allow for cases of raptor persecution to be more robustly pursued“.

The second amendment was much more bizarre and came from Jamie McGrigor MSP, a long-time supporter of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association:

Motion S4M-09916.1: Jamie McGrigor, Highlands and Islands, Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, Date Lodged: 02/05/2014

Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland

As an amendment to motion S4M-09916 in the name of Paul Wheelhouse (Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland), insert at end “, and further welcomes the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association’s conservation project, the Year of the Wader, and NFU Scotland’s recently published Sea Eagle Action Plan“.

It’s not clear to us how either of these items are relevant to a debate on eradicating raptor persecution in Scotland.

To watch today’s live debate on Holyrood TV click here. [Session opens at 2pm but there are a number of items to get through before the wildlife crime debate begins].

UPDATE 23:00hrs: Click here to read our comments about today’s debate and to find the link to the archive footage.

Increased calls for jail sentences for raptor-killing criminals

RSPB Scotland and the Scottish Wildlife Trust are calling on the authorities to start imposing jail sentences on those convicted of killing birds of prey, and also to start using the option of prosecutions under vicarious liability legislation.

A prison term as a sentencing option is already in place – no new laws are required, just a willingness from the authorities to start using existing legislation to its full effect. To date, nobody has ever received a jail term for the persecution of raptors. The new measures for vicarious liability in relation to raptor crime came in to force on 1st January 2012 – over two years later and we’re still waiting to see the first case.

The Scotsman is running an article on this today (see here), and there was also an interesting radio debate on BBC Radio Scotland between RSPB Scotland’s Head of Investigations, Ian Thomson, and Scottish Land & Estates’ Moorland Group Director, Tim Baynes. The debate can be listened to here for another 7 days (starts at 50:36 and runs to 58:11).

Talking of vicarious liability, we’ll shortly be blogging about a presentation on this very subject that was given to the annual Police Wildlife Crime conference last week. The presenter was none other than David McKie, the defence lawyer for the Scottish Gamekeeper’s Association. An interesting choice of speaker, we thought, and we’ll be examining what he, and several other speakers, including the Environment Minister, had to say in due course.

Tomorrow there will be a debate in the Scottish Parliament called: Wildlife Crime, Eradicating Raptor Persecution from Scotland. More on this later…

 

More parliamentary questions asked about raptor persecution in Scotland

Claire Baker MSP 2Last week we blogged about MSP Liam McArthur’s parliamentary questions about raptor persecution in Scotland, posed after our articles on the alleged police response to the poisoned peregrine found at Leadhills (see here).

It seems he’s not the only MSP paying attention to this blog.

Claire Baker MSP (Scottish Labour’s Shadow Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs & the Environment, and MSP for Mid Scotland & Fife) has also been asking some pointed parliamentary questions:

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.

Current Status: Expected Answer date 07/05/2014

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.

Current Status: Expected Answer date 07/05/2014

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.

Current Status: Expected Answer date 07/05/2014

Not only has she been asking parliamentary questions, she’s also been writing to the Environment Minister specifically about raptor persecution (see here), and last week she used her opening address at the SEPA and SRUC conference on land use and sustainable development to highlight the Ross-shire Massacre and state that “there can be no more excuses from landowners and the Government” (see here).

The Environment Minister is coming under increasing attack for what many see as an abject failure to deal with raptor persecution, particularly that associated with game-shooting estates. We suggested on Twitter this weekend that the Scottish Government is too obsessed with the Independence Referendum to care/notice the on-going rise in raptor crime. Paul Wheelhouse has hit back this morning with a series of tweets, including:

“It [raptor persecution] stains our reputation and I promise you this is not being ignored by me or Scottish Government”

and

“We’re being robust and if new measures don’t improve, will go further”

and

“Hope to have a parliamentary debate in near future”.

UPDATE 16th MAY 2014: Answers to Claire Baker’s parliamentary questions here.

SNH refuses to recommend golden eagle as national bird

Fearnan2Last month, the Scottish Parliament’s Public Petitions Committee took oral evidence on the petition to designate the golden eagle as Scotland’s National Bird.

Evidence in support of the petition was provided by Duncan Orr-Ewing (RSPB Scotland) and wildlife cameraman Gordon Buchanan. The hearing descended into farce when Tory MSP committee member Jackson Carlaw suggested that the eagle was an unsuitable candidate as it was symbolic of the Nazi regime (see our blog here).

The hearing was available to watch on Scottish Parliament TV but for those who missed it, you can read the official report here: Public Petitions Committee official report 28 Jan 2014

The hearing ended with the Petitions Committee agreeing to seek written advice from key organisations including the Scottish Raptor Study Group and SNH.

That written advice has now been submitted.

SNH advice: SNH response to petition 1500 Feb 19 2014

SRSG advice: SRSG response to petition 1500 Feb 23 2014

SNH, the Government’s statutory conservation agency, has refused to recommend the golden eagle to be Scotland’s National Bird. They say it is a contender, but suggest that other species are also worthy of consideration, such as the Scottish crossbill, crested tit, various sea birds, golden plover, curlew, osprey, white-tailed eagle, and wait for it….the red grouse.

Yeah, brilliant suggestion – let’s have the red grouse, a species that is intensively managed on an industrial scale (kept at artificially high densities and repeatedly dosed with toxic medications) across wide swathes of the Central, Eastern and Southern uplands at the expense of every predator with teeth, claws or a hooked beak. Predators that are ruthlessly and systematically killed, both legally and illegally, just so some grouse moor owner can impress his cronies with a large ‘bag’ of dead red grouse.

In stark comparison, the Scottish Raptor Study Group expressly supports the designation of the golden eagle as Scotland’s National Bird and makes clear that this designation would go some way to reducing the current illegal persecution of this species.

SNH (who quite tellingly didn’t once mention persecution in their response) has missed an important opportunity to promote the conservation of the golden eagle and send out a clear message to those who continue to poison, trap and shoot this species as part of grouse-management activities. They have actually sent out a message, just not one that’s fitting of a conservation agency that knows, through its own commissioned research, that this species needs all the help it can get.

The next stage of the petition process will likely be a public consultation. We’ll post links in due course.

Photo of young golden eagle ‘Fearnan‘ taken in his Perthshire nest by Keith Brockie. Two years later (Dec 2013) he was found dead on an Angus grouse moor. He had been illegally poisoned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Environment Minister dismisses calls for more action against raptor killers

Fearnan Angus Glens Dec 2013Over recent weeks we’ve blogged about the increased calls on the Scottish Government to do more in the fight against raptor persecution.

First there were the hundreds of emails sent by the general public following the discovery of poisoned golden eagle Fearnan, found dead on an Angus grouse moor in December (see here). This was followed by a parliamentary motion condemning the illegal killing of birds of prey in Scotland (see here), closely followed with an amendment calling for sufficient resources to tackle raptor persecution and a review of game management legislation to assess whether further measures could be introduced (see here). Shortly afterwards came calls from the RSPB, the Scottish Raptor Study Group and the Scottish Ornithologists’ Club for estate licensing to be introduced (see here and here).

This was a prime opportunity for our Environment Minister, Paul Wheelhouse, to take advantage of such overwhelming public backing and really put his money where his mouth is. Instead, we got this, his generic response sent out by his aide towards the end of January:

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your recent letter to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Mr Paul Wheelhouse. I have been asked to respond.

Mr Wheelhouse was appalled to hear that the young golden eagle Fearnan had been illegally poisoned in Angus. This was particularly disappointing coming as it did at the end of the Year of Natural Scotland, which had seen the golden eagle voted as Scotland’s favourite of the ‘Big Five’ species in an exercise conducted by Scottish Natural Heritage. While it is entirely understandable that there is a strong public interest in knowing more about the case, the Minister hopes you will understand that as there is a live and ongoing police investigation, it would be inappropriate for Scottish Ministers to comment further.

Clearly this has focused the attention of all who care about our wildlife on raptor persecution issues more generally. In recent years we have made some progress in reducing the number of raptor poisonings – down to three in 2012, but at the time of publication the Minister made it abundantly clear there would be no room for complacency, given the risk of a change to other forms of persecution. However, while the final numbers for 2013 have not yet been published, it does appear that there was an increase in confirmed poisonings. There were also a number of illegal shooting and trapping incidents involving raptors last year.

Mr Wheelhouse believes that these crimes have only served to reinforce the need for the new measures he announced in July 2013. These new measures were:

  • Scottish Natural Heritage to restrict the use of General Licences on holdings of land where there is reason to believe that wildlife crime has taken place. The 2014 General Licenses now contain an enabling paragraph making it clear to users that SNH can act where they believe it is appropriate to do so.
  • A review of the penalties associated with wildlife crime. The aim here is to ensure that the penalties for these offences are an adequate deterrent and that they properly reflect the damage that can be caused to ecosystems. The Minister will shortly announce further detail on the nature and scope of this review.
  • To encourage the use of the full range of investigative techniques at their disposal by Police Scotland, to identify and bring to justice the criminals responsible for wildlife crimes in Scotland, a measure fully and publicly supported by the Lord Advocate. A number of meetings have taken place involving the Lord Advocate in ensuring this is delivered.

Tackling raptor persecution remains a key priority for the Scottish Government and we will monitor the impact of these new measures. We believe there is a strong legal framework in place in Scotland. The key now to defeating wildlife crime is effective and robust enforcement action and we will work hard to ensure support and encouragement for those involved in law enforcement to put an end to this blight on Scotland’s reputation. Yours sincerely,

Karen Hunter

Wildlife Crime Policy Officer

Paul-Wheelhouse-MSP So here we have a situation where the Minister actually admits that the measures are not working (he acknowledges an increase in the reported poisoning figures from 2012-2013) but claims ‘we have made some progress’. Let’s just be clear – no, we haven’t made any progress. Raptor persecution continues on land used for game-shooting, just as it has for decades, and most of the criminals are still getting away with it without any fear of being prosecuted, with just a handful of exceptions. How that can be dressed up as ‘progress’ is unfathomable.

Wheelhouse still claims that the latest measures need to be given time to take effect (see here for his comments to the BBC two weeks ago). One of the measures he’s talking about is the introduction of vicarious liability. VL was introduced from 1st January 2012 – that’s more than two years ago – and still there hasn’t been a single prosecution. A more recent measure is one he suggested last July that has just come in to effect (as of Jan 1st) – the power given to SNH to restrict the use of general licenses on land where they suspect illegal persecution has taken place. Can anyone actually see landowner-loving SNH enforcing this restriction? Time will tell – and given that we’ve already had the first reported illegal poisoning incident this year (see here) it’ll be a good test. We’re not holding our breath.

For how much longer does Wheelhouse expect us to stand by and watch as our raptors are poisoned, trapped, shot and bludgeoned to death while he’s still dicking around saying ‘we need more time, more time’? Conveniently, he hasn’t actually stipulated a time frame.

We don’t need more time at all. NOW is the time to get hold of these filthy criminals and he’d find he has the support of thousands of people if only he had the guts to do what he knows is needed.

Ironically, he also told the BBC this: “Robust and effective law enforcement is the next step in the continued efforts made here in Scotland to tackle ongoing crime“.

He knows fine well that the most effective and robust law enforcement will come by increasing the investigatory powers of the SSPCA. We’ve been waiting for three years now for the promised public consultation on this important issue – here’s the timeline:

Feb 2011: The consultation was first suggested by former MSP Peter Peacock as an amendment during the WANE Bill debates. The then Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham rejected it as an amendment but suggested a consultation was in order.

Sept 2011: Seven months later MSP Elaine Murray lodged a parliamentary motion that further powers for the SSPCA should be considered.

Nov 2011: Elaine Murray MSP formalised the question in a P&Q session and the next Environment Minister, Stewart Stevenson, then promised that the consultation would happen in the first half of 2012.

Sept 2012: 9 months later and nothing had happened so we asked Paul Wheelhouse, as the new Environment Minister, when the consultation would take place. The response, in October 2012, was:

 “The consultation has been delayed by resource pressures but will be brought forward in the near future”.

 July 2013: 10 months later and still no sign so we asked the Environment Minister again. In August 2013, this was the response:

 “We regret that resource pressures did further delay the public consultation on the extension of SSPCA powers. However, I can confirm that the consultation document will be published later this year”.

Sept 2013: At a meeting of the PAW Executive Group, Wheelhouse said this:

“The consultation on new powers for the SSPCA will be published in October 2013“.

Jan 2014: In response to one of our blog readers who wrote to the Minister to ask why the consultation had not yet been published:

“We very much regret that resource pressures have caused further delays to the consultation to gain views on the extension of SSPCA powers. It will be published in the near future“.

Does anyone still believe that tackling raptor persecution is a Scottish Government ‘key priority’?