How many licences have been issued to kill so-called ‘protected’ ravens?

‘How many licences have been issued to kill ravens?’ This was one of a series of raven-killing questions asked recently of the Scottish Government by Alison Johnstone MSP (Lothian, Scottish Green Party).

Here’s the full suite of her written questions lodged on 18th September 2012:

S4W-09688 Alison Johnstone: To ask the Scottish Government how many licences to kill ravens were granted by (a) it and (b) Scottish Natural Heritage in (i) 2011 and (ii) 2012 and what the grounds were for granting such licences, broken down by local authority.

S4W-09689 Alison Johnstone: To ask the Scottish Government how many multi-annual licences to kill ravens have been granted since 2011, broken down by local authority.

S4W-09690 Alison Johnstone: To ask the Scottish Government what proportion of holders of licences to kill ravens indicated that they had made kills in 2011 and how many birds were killed.

S4W-09691 Alison Johnstone: To ask the Scottish Government how many licences to kill ravens have not been renewed by Scottish Natural Heritage because of non-compliance with conditions in each year since 2011.

S4W-09692 Alison Johnstone: To ask the Scottish Government whether Scottish Natural Heritage will publish details annually of the number of ravens killed under licence.

S4W-09693 Alison Johnstone: To ask the Scottish Government what factors are considered when considering granting a licence to kill ravens.

S4W-09694 Alison Johnstone: To ask the Scottish Government whether there are licensing restrictions to control the killing of ravens in nests during the breeding season.

S4W-09695 Alison Johnstone: To ask the Scottish Government what checks are made to ensure that livestock protection licences to kill ravens are not used for game management.

The answers provided by Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse are quite interesting (see here for full script). SNH took over the responsibility of issuing licences from 1st July 2011 – previously the Scottish Government had issued them.

It’s fascinating to learn what factors are considered by SNH when considering whether to grant one of these licences. Apparently, “SNH relies on expert advice from site visits made by Scottish Government Rural Payments and Inspections Directorate (SGRPID) staff to inform licensing decisions“. Interesting. I wonder how many ornithologists and/or ecologists work for SGRPID?

It’s also fascinating to learn that SNH also relies upon SGRPID to make site visit checks to ensure that livestock protection licences (which is how these raven-killing licences are defined) to kill ravens are not used for game management. Apparently if allegations were made in this respect, then SNH would rely upon the police to investigate. Perhaps that’s why, in answer to Alison’s question about how many licences to kill ravens have not been renewed by SNH (since 2011) because of non-compliance with the conditions of the licence, Mr Wheelhouse replied: “To date, no such cases have occurred“. Really?

Another interesting piece of information to emerge from these written questions and answers is the confirmation that a raven-killing licence was issued in the Scottish Borders for 2012. Now, according to our sources, a raven-killing licence was issued at Langholm this year. Hopefully more detailed information about this will appear on the Langholm project website in due course. Is this a fore-runner to the issuing of a buzzard-killing licence at Langholm? We are aware that, unofficially at least, there is great interest in ‘controlling’ buzzards at Langholm amongst some of the project partners. Thankfully, so far, there has also been strong opposition to this move by some of the other project partners. You don’t need to be Einstein to work out which partners are for and which are against.

Finally, Mr Wheelhouse assures us that “SNH is considering how to publish statistics [of the annual number of ravens killed under licence] in the future“.

Well done Alison Johnstone MSP for asking some probing questions.

‘Barry’ the Langholm harrier is “missing”

Here’s the latest blog entry from the Langholm Moorland blogspot (link here):

Heartbreaking

The sun is shining here in Langholm, which is an incredibly rare and usually heart warming occurance, but today my heart is heavy. Sadly and all too predictably Barry (the young male hen harrier fledged from Langholm this year) has has gone the way of so many others.
Barry’s last fix was transmitted on the 2nd of October, although he was seen on the morning of 4th of October, when he was observed coming out of a roost by a raptor worker. His tag was due to transmit on the evening of the 4th, and his previous transmissions were always regular. There was no transmission then or subsequently. At this stage, we have to presume that he is dead, and it is very unlikely that there has been any transmitter failure. Most of his previous movements were associated with grouse moors. The police have been kept informed and the search for the carcass is underway and ongoing. 
We are still awaiting toxicology reports from the female Harrier Blae.
But don’t you go worrying your pretty little heads about this latest incident. There’s “no hard evidence” to suggest his ‘disappearance’ is a result of criminal activity, and anyway, the PAW Scotland partnership will have a chat about it over soft biscuits and coffee.
Fucking outrageous.
Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse’s email address: ministerforenvironment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
First Minister Alex Salmond’s email address: FirstMinister@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
Previous blog entries about Blae & Barry here, here, here, here, here

Environment Minister’s response to dead eagle found in Grampian

Un-fucking-believable. Yes, it’s a swear word but that’s the least of our concerns. Read what follows and you’ll be swearing in anger too…

The Environment Minister has responded to a letter sent to him by one of our readers (Dave Adam) concerning the appalling death of that golden eagle back in May (see here for details of that bird’s demise). This is the eagle whose satellite transmitter showed the bird went down on a grouse moor in Glen Esk, Angus for 15 hours (an area where another golden eagle had previously been found poisoned in 2009, oh, and a buzzard was also found poisoned there in 2008 although that wasn’t publicised at the time) and then this eagle miraculously moved to a layby in Aberdeen, in the middle of the night, where it was found dead several days later with two broken legs – injuries consistent with being caught in a leg-hold trap. Yes, THAT eagle. According to the Minister, this scenario may not have been the result of criminal activity.

Dave Adam has posted the Minister’s response letter in the comments section of the original post (thank you) but it’s far too important for it to remain there, hence the decision to publish it here.

Here it is in full:

Thank you for your letter of the 25 September 2012 to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Mr Paul Wheelhouse. I have been asked to respond.

I agree that the media reports were a terrible story of the suffering of a young golden eagle. The reports may suggest that the circumstances of this incident were suggestive of an offence however there is no hard evidence and it remains possible that there is an alternative explanation. It is therefore inappropriate for me to comment.

The unlawful killing of any raptors has no place in today’s Scotland and we will continue to work hard to eradicate this criminal activity. We believe that the partnership approach with the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW) Scotland, is bringing the reduction in bird of prey poisoning that can be seen in the statistics in recent years. However we are not complacent and if there is evidence of a switch to other methods of persecution we will take action to bear down on those methods.

The Scottish Government recognises that game shooting generates significant income and employment in our rural economy, often in areas where there are few alternative opportunities. However it is important that these businesses operate within the law, and the Scottish Government recognises that most such businesses do so. However where there appear to be conflicts for example between raptors and highly-intensive grouse moor management, we believe that an approach of seeking to improve the effectiveness of law enforcement while working with partner organisations to isolate those persisting with illegal practices is the best way forward.

Scottish police have a clear focus on tackling wildlife crime cases. Law enforcement’s role in tackling wildlife crime was reviewed by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary Scotland in 2008, and there was a follow-up review in 2009. As a result there are officers with wildlife crime duties in every police force area and a consistent and professional approach from senior officers.

It is frustrating that it is difficult to detect, prosecute and convict those responsible for wildlife crimes. However while it easy to make suppositions about circumstances of an apparent offence as reported in the media, wildlife crime must be subject to the same standard of proof as any other crime. Police and prosecutors also apply the same stringent procedure for dealing with wildlife crime as for any other sort of crime.

You say that the golden eagle population is threatened by illegal persecution. The Golden Eagle Conservation Framework published by SNH in 2008 did identify persecution in eastern Scotland and food shortages in the west as threats to the birds’ conservation status. It is difficult to estimate the amount of illegal persecution, but we recognise that in the longer term the best measure of success in dealing with raptor persecution will be when vacant golden eagle territories, as identified in the Framework document, are re-occupied.

K. Hunter, Policy Officer, Scottish Government.

Like we said at the top, un-fucking-believable. Especially coming a day after we learn that another golden eagle was the target of criminal activity on a grouse moor, this time being found shot and critically injured and left to die.

What did we say yesterday about needing a strong response from government, and not the usual platitudes about ‘partnership working’?

The question is, what are we going to do about it? And by ‘we’, that means all of us. Angry? You’d better believe it.

If you want to tell him how angry you are, and why (because it obviously needs spelling out) here’s his email address again: ministerforenvironment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

When you’ve done that, send a copy to Alex Salmond: FirstMinister@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

These politicians HAVE to understand that we’re not tolerating this any longer.

Where’s the promised gov consultation on increasing SSPCA powers?

In light of recent events, showing continued evidence that some Scottish police forces are incapable of taking wildlife crime seriously, even though raptor persecution has been identified as a ‘national wildlife crime priority’, the time is right to once again call for additional investigative powers to be given to the SSPCA.

You may remember we’ve blogged about this before (see here and here for detailed background information), after the former Environment Minister, Stewart Stevenson MSP promised a consultation “in the first half of 2012” to consider this option and ask for the views of the various stakeholder groups. Although we already know that the SGA doesn’t support it (see here). It’s now the second half of 2012, so where is this consultation?

Perhaps we should give the new Environment Minister a nudge in the right direction, or at least ask him when we can expect this consultation to open. Email Paul Wheelhouse MSP directly at: ministerforenvironment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

High hopes for new Scottish Environment Minister

We have a new Scottish Environment Minister, following the government reshuffle today. Stewart Stevenson MSP is out, and has been replaced by Paul Wheelhouse MSP.

Stevenson was ok, but always seemed slightly out of place in this role. He certainly didn’t engage with the issues as well as his predecessor, Roseanna Cunningham MSP had done. It would be fair to say he’d been unmemorable, but at least he didn’t sanction anything stupid during his time.

We don’t know much about Paul Wheelhouse, but a cursory glance at his page on the SNP website (here) gives us reason to be optimistic – he’s a member of the SSPCA and the RSPB.

We’ll be following his political activities with great interest.

2012 wildlife crime conference: Stewart Stevenson (Scottish Government)

This is the fourth blog in the series focusing on presentations made at the recent police wildlife crime conference in Scotland, this time from Stewart Stevenson MSP, the Scottish Environment Minister. The following comprises the first two thirds of his presentation; the final third isn’t really relevant here.

Stewart Stevenson, Scottish Environment Minister

[Some jovial preamble that isn’t relevant here]…”This conference doesn’t, er, stand in a vacuum, it’s, er, carrying on from terrific effort over many years to create what is in effect, er, the biggest and most successful, er, wildlife, er, crime event in the UK and I’m sure that under the new management we’ll see, er, us building on past successes in that regard.

And of course, wildlife crime is something which in resource terms is comparatively small, er, in, in the, in the big picture so many people in this room and beyond who are engaged in fighting wildlife crime are doing so as an addition to, er, broader responsibilities, er, that, that constitute regular, er, day jobs and indeed many, er, make huge contribution in unpaid work outside hours, er, to get the job done, get the results and get the convictions, er, that are very important in sending out the right kind of messages, er, to people involved in, er, wildlife crime, but of course again as the Assistant Chief Constable made reference to, it’s often the case, er, that the Mr Bigs of our crime networks, erm, are engaged in wildlife crime, there’s correlation when you look at the maps often between where the Mr Bigs live and clear demonstration of wildlife crime, er, taking place in an area and unlike their activities as Mr Bigs, protected behind lawyers and accountants, really Boards of Management, their engagement perhaps in wildlife crime is, is less protected and may often be a very good way of getting into criminal, criminal networks and more broadly disrupting them so I hope that, er, when the police make operational decisions, because it’s only for me to seek to persuade but not to direct, er, that that is, er, part of the, the, the thinking.

I’ve been the Minister for Environment and Climate Change for coming up for a year now and I’m absolutely gobsmacked as I go across Scotland by the, the work that’s going on in the environment generally, whether it’s conservation work on red squirrels, whether it’s protecting our small number of capercaillies, whether it’s innovative technologies out to produce cleaner sources of fuel, it’s all based on the commitment of dedicated individuals and we in government are immensely, er, proud that people make that commitment and very grateful indeed.

Now this is the first, er, Tulliallan conference since the passage of the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill in 2011, the Act does contain, er, a number of new provisions that are very relevant to this conference and I know that, er, the Sheriff for example will be explaining the WANE Act, er, a bit later, I’m not over-egging the pudding, Sheriff, I hope, erm, I, er, won’t be able to, to listen to it myself but then I’m not part of the enforcement agency. There was a passionate debate in Parliament about many aspects of it and I think at the end of the day we achieved, er, a good and equitable balance, there was a huge cross-party support, er, for the final form that it took. But the passage of that Bill is a very clear indication, er, that Parliament, er, takes an important view of this and, er, the, the, the importance that, er, the BBC Radio Scotland this morning gave to this conference and the publication, er, of, erm, the poisoning figures for, er, raptors shows that the media see this as an important agenda as well.

The new legislation, er, a number of things are relevant to this conference, comprehensive revision of the law relating to game and the poaching of game, new closed seasons for hares, new regulations for snares, a major revision of the Deer Act backed up by a new code of practice, a new approach to invasive non-native species, I’ll just say a little something, one of the things I tripped over, just to illustrate, er, the issue of invasive non-native speciesâ€Ĥ[goes into anecdote about American Signal Crayfish]â€ĤThere’s new offences, a new code of practice to come on, on this regard, and there’s a new requirement that we provide an annual report to Parliament on wildlife crime.

Now, I’m not going to talk through the legislation, others are better equipped to do that. There are officials here from the Scottish Government who’ll be happy to interact with you, er, on the subject. But let me just pick up a couple of issues from it – during the course of the Bill it was apparent that there was a prevailing feeling among MSPs that we needed to take some tougher legal powers to combat the problem of illegal raptor persecution in Scotland. Er, it’s been a high priority since we took office, it is of course an issue that not only threatens some of our rarest wildlife such as the hen harrier, but it casts a disproportionately unpleasant shadow on our reputation as a country known for its high quality natural environment. The environment is a key part of our identity, it’s part of our brand and it’s vital to our export success, er, in many ways and of course wildlife tourism is a very important economic contributor.

So, the concept of an attractive, well-managed, er, natural environment can be badly damaged by any idea that it’s a place where some people can still put out dangerously toxic materials to poison some of our more spectacular wildlife. And of course, when you put poisons out in the environment, you never know what the effect will be; a dog walker can be exposed to them, domestic animals can be poisoned and indeed human beings without knowing, er, what’s going on. It is a tiny minority but it disproportionately, er, scars, er, our landscape so we’re continuing to work with our partners in PAW to change attitudes, make that minority even smaller in future, and eventually see it disappear.

So part of our response has been to introduce vicarious liability, er, provisions. There are two aspects to that. That small minority in the past of land managers who may have given a nod and a wink to their employees in relation to persecution of birds of prey, that addresses that issue, those who turn their back on doing the right thing. But now there is no doubt that their behaviour will not escape the reach of the law, they risk finding themselves in the dock as well as the unfortunate employee, the gamekeeper, whoever.

The second aspect is probably more important in the long run. We want to send a message to all land managers that inaction, benign or otherwise, is simply not good enough. Land managers need to be proactive in ensuring all employees and contractors understand legal obligations and responsibilities, they have to take all reasonable steps and exercise due diligence. And I want to pay a tribute to Scottish Land and Estates, because they have been very supportive in getting that message out, working with government, er, to develop guidance for land managers. So this is not about the industry as a whole being a problem, quite the opposite, they are a huge contributor, er, to determining best practice, to getting the message out, achieving a proportionate and proper legal balance between the many interests that there are in, in, in the country and they’ve been enormously helpful. It is just a tiny minority, and they want to see them eliminated as much as everyone else, er, does.

We’re certainly not looking for a string of prosecutions, indeed, I will measure success if there are none, because that would be absolutely ideal in a context of, of good behaviours in, in our countryside. Sustained improvement, proactive management, especially in areas that we’ve identified as being at high risk where previous history show there’s been bird or prey prosecution, we know that this is one of a range of measures in itself it doesn’t, er, solve the problems.

Now I don’t want to just speak about, er, raptor persecution, a couple of, er, other aspects of, of the work that I want to speak about, the first is the annual poisoning hotspots maps which are published today which show a significant reduction, er, in the number of birds, er, poisoned in the last year, and that’s very, very welcome but there’s still too many, er, it’s not necessarily an inescapably a long-term trend although the suggestions are that it probably is. We want to get to a position where it’s zero, ah, we’re not quite there yet. Partnership working is an important part of making sure that we get the outcomes, the input of the RSPB and Scottish Land and Estates working together give this annual exercise and reporting credibility, demonstrates that shared commitment that’s going to make a real difference, and I particularly like when I see the pack that you have as delegates to have material from RSPB and Scottish Land and Estates, showing that shared commitment, er, to this agenda.

Second, er, raptor related point, just to say something about the success of the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group, it’s been working extremely well and I thank Alan Smailes, formerly of Grampian Police, my local police force, for his tireless commitment and role, he brought energy and frankness to the group and made, er, a real difference. Since, er, Alan’s recent retirement, Superintendent Ewen West from Tayside has taken over the reigns and continues where Alan left off. Real progress is being made, er, as meetings are held usually every six weeks, er, with excellent attendance. There are some developments in the pipeline in the group that have the potential to have a real impact on, on unlawful raptor pred persecution and again it’s partnership working that will make the real difference.”

[On the whole Stewart did quite well, and when you compare his attitude to that of his counterparts in England, he is streets ahead in that he at least acknowledges that raptor persecution is a problem. However, this oft-repeated insistence that raptor persecution is only being carried out by a ‘tiny minority’ is simply not supported by the facts.

There was also concern about his apparent brown-nosing of SLE that didn’t quite fit in with the fact that his government introduced vicarious liability specifically because they recognised that many land owners and land managers are often the instigators of illegal raptor persecution (if it was just a tiny minority then surely the government wouldn’t have bothered with all the hassle of introducing new legislation to combat it). In an interview on BBC Radio Scotland on the morning of the conference, Stewart took every opportunity to promote SLE and in doing so, carefully side-stepped some rather well-informed questions from the interviewer. See here for the full transcript recently posted on the SLE website. He also seems to have conveniently forgotten the communication he had last autumn with SLE Director Lord Hopetoun, who seemed to have a different view to Stewart about the benefit of vicarious liability legislation – see here].

The next instalment in this series will focus on the presentation given by Des Thompson (SNH), who also has an apparent aversion to criticising land owners.

SSPCA continues to perform well in advance of govt consultation to increase their powers in wildlife crime investigations

A year ago in February 2011, former MSP Peter Peacock put forward an ammendment to the then Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill [known as the WANE Bill], to increase the investigatory powers of the SSPCA, to help with the effective investigation of wildlife crime, and particularly raptor persecution crime. The ammendment didn’t make it into the final WANE Act but former Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham said it could be considered, after public consultation, in a later Criminal Justice Bill. Seven months later, in September 2011, MSP Elaine Murray raised the issue again (see here).

In November 2011, MSP Elaine Murray again raised the issue, and this time was told by the current Environment Minister, Stewart Stevenson, that the Scottish Government intended to begin a consultation during the first half of 2012 (see here).

So far we haven’t seen any movement on the impending consultation but there’s still another four months to go and when we do see some movement, we’ll blog about it here.

Meanwhile, the SSPCA has continued to enhance its hard-earned reputation for successfully bringing criminals involved in wildlife crime to justice. In terms of catching raptor persecutors, this was most recently demonstrated by the successful prosecution of gamekeeper David Whitefield, who was convicted of poisoning four buzzards on a shooting estate in South Lanarkshire (see here).

Their success doesn’t end there. Just last week, the SSPCA was instrumental in securing a ground-breaking conviction of a man who was guilty of keeping dogs used to fight against wild animals, including foxes and badgers (see here, here and here). A conviction for this type of crime isn’t novel – we’ve blogged about it all too often in recent months. What was ground-breaking about this case was that we believe it was the first conviction in Scotland for this type of offence (involving wildlife) under the Animal Health & Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 – legislation usually reserved for incidents not involving wildlife. Perhaps this will start a trend and we’ll begin to see more use of this Act when dealing with raptor persecutors, for example, in cases where buzzards (or other protected raptor species) are illegally held in crow traps.

We look forward to following the public consultation in the coming few months on increased investigatory powers for the SSPCA.

Joke sentence for second-time convicted gamekeeper

David Alexander Whitefield, the former gamekeeper at Culter Allers Estate in South Lanarkshire, was today sentenced following his December 2011 conviction for illegally poisoning four buzzards (see here for conviction report).

Before we discuss his latest sentence, let’s remind ourselves of Whitefield’s criminal record: This keeper, who was also a member of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, was convicted in October 2008 for offences relating to the unlawful capture and subsequent welfare of a buzzard. His sentence for that conviction was a £300 fine. He kept his job as the sole gamekeeper and he was not expelled from the SGA. Just six months later, in April 2009, RSPB investigators were alerted to the signs of an illegal poisoning spree on this estate. Obviously, these subsequent poisoning activities, for which Whitefield has now been convicted, demonstrate that the £300 fine had zero effect as a deterrent (no great surprise really).

So then you might expect today’s sentence to reflect not only the seriousness of the crime of poisoning wildlife (and potentially any human and/or domestic animals that happened to wander through the well-used public walking trails on this estate), but also to acknowledge that Whitefield, already previously convicted for wildlife crime there, had shown a complete disregard for wildlife legislation.

You might reasonably expect that the sheriff in this case, Nicola Stewart, might utilise her full sentencing powers and go for the most serious sentence available for this type of crime, which includes a custodial sentence and/or a financial penalty for each poisoned bird. That would see Whitefield put away for a while and would send out a very clear message that this type of crime will no longer be tolerated in this country, just as the Scottish Government has claimed over and over again in recent years.

So why then, was Whitefield handed down a 100 hour community service order as his ‘punishment’?

According to an RSPB press release, Sheriff Stewart is reported to have said the punishment was a direct alternative to a custodial sentence and that poisoning is a serious offence. Why was he given a direct alternative to a custodial sentence and where, in his 100 hour community service order, is there any indication that illegal poisoning is considered a serious offence?

This is a joke sentence, to add to all the other joke sentences that have been handed out to the few criminals that are actually prosecuted for these crimes. As we keep seeing, over and over again, these punishments are not providing the required deterrent so surely it’s now time to introduce mandatory sentences for these offences, and that includes custodial sentences. These are already available to the judiciary – so far, for whatever reason, not one custodial sentence has been given to a convicted raptor poisoner. We need to be asking why that is, and we need to keep asking.

Well done to the SSPCA for some serious doggedness with this case – it’s been a long time in the works and looked at one point to be in danger of failing on a legal technicality. Perseverance paid off, and despite the pathetic sentence, those involved with the groundwork deserve much credit.

BBC news article here

RSPB Scotland press release on Birdguides Blog here

Previously convicted gamekeeper guilty again

A previously convicted gamekeeper has today admitted to poisoning four buzzards with Alpha-chloralose laced baits. At Lanark Sheriff Court, David Alexander Whitefield (45) of Coulter, near Biggar in Lanarkshire, pled guilty to the offences that took place between March and November 2009 at Culter Allers Farm, near Biggar, where Whitefield was employed as the sole gamekeeper for pheasant and partridge shooting. He has reportedly blamed his employer (the landowner), whom Whitefield claims told him to reduce the number of buzzards.

In addition to the four poisoned buzzards found on the shooting estate, a large quantity of Alpha-chloralose was found inside unlocked outbuildings, some of it inside a coffee jar – this extremely hazardous poison could have easily been mistaken for sugar or powdered milk by an unsuspecting visitor. Culter Allers is a popular area for walkers and it is fortunate indeed that no person or pet was poisoned. The buzzards were not so lucky.

This case has been in the works for some time, first reported a year ago and then delayed for legal technicalities (see here, here and here). Sentencing for his latest conviction has been deferred for background reports and will take place in early January. We will watch with great interest.

Whitefield’s previous convictions include failing to ensure the welfare of a buzzard and possession of a buzzard. These offences took place at Culter Allers and he was convicted at Lanark Sheriff Court in September 2008. He received a pathetic £300 fine (see here). Just six months later he was poisoning buzzards. At the time of the first conviction (Sept 2008), he was reported to be a self-confessed member of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association. It is not known if he was a member of the SGA at the time of the buzzard poisoning incidents (March-Nov 2009) or whether he is still a member – you can find out by emailing info@scottishgamekeepers.co.uk

Congratulations to the SSPCA for leading this case and for securing a conviction. Let’s hope the Scottish parliament takes heed next year when they’re consulting on extending the powers of the SSPCA for the investigation of wildlife crime.

STV news story about Whitefield’s latest conviction here

BBC news story here

Consultation due on extending SSPCA powers for wildlife crime investigations

The Scottish Environment Minister, Stewart Stevenson MSP, has confirmed that the Scottish government will consult on extending the powers of the SSPCA in relation to the investigation of wildlife crime. The consultation is planned to begin in the first half of 2012, a year after it was first agreed to.

This recent announcement came after MSP Elaine Murray once again raised the question about when the consultation would actually take place (see here for her earlier motion on this issue and for some background reading on why many feel these extended powers for the SSPCA are urgently needed). Thank you, Elaine Murray MSP.

Here is the transcript of the relevant parliamentary question and answer from Thursday 17th November 2011:

Elaine Murray (Dumfriesshire) (Scottish Labour): To ask the Scottish Executive what consideration it is giving to extending the powers of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in relation to the investigation of wildlife crime and whether it will consult on the introduction of relevant legislation. (S4W-03975)

Stewart Stevenson: As the then Minister for Environment and Climate Change made clear at Stage 3 of the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill on 2 March 2011, we intend to consult on extending the powers of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in relation to the investigation of wildlife crime. We plan to launch this consultation in the first half of 2012.