Tag: scottish parliament

No red grouse to shoot at on Inglorious 12th? Grouse moor owners releasing non-native red-legged partridge as alternative quarry

Today marks the opening of the red grouse shooting season (the Inglorious 12th) and the media is full of ‘woe is us’ stories from the grouse shooting industry claiming that the lack of grouse available to shoot this year (largely down to climate breakdown) will result in the annihilation of the rural economy. (It won’t).

Strangely, the grouse shooting industry is keeping very quiet about the jolly good wheeze it’s got up its sleeve to ensure that the bloodsports enthusiasts will still have something to get their kicks from killing – they’re using the red-legged partridge (RLP) as an alternative quarry to red grouse – although they won’t be able to kill them until the RLP shooting season opens on 1st September.

Millions of this non-native species, hatched and reared by gamebird breeders and sold to shooting estates across the UK, are typically released onto lowland shoots but in recent years there has been an upsurge in the release of this species on to upland grouse moors.

This may be a response to continuing low red grouse stocks, but in Scotland I suspect it’s also a response to the new legislation requiring licences for grouse shooting, which can be suspended / revoked if wildlife crime such as raptor persecution, badger persecution, fox hunting etc continues on those estates.

I’ve written about this previously (here), as the new licences only cover the shooting of red grouse, not the shooting of pheasants or RLPs. I’ve argued that shooting estates can simply by-pass the new grouse shooting licencing rules (and thus sanctions) by shooting RLPs instead of grouse.

Additionally, if a grouse moor owner’s licence is suspended/revoked because wildlife crimes have been uncovered on the estate, that owner/tenant could simply switch to shooting RLPs instead of red grouse because the licence revocation doesn’t apply to shooting RLPs.

Although, to be fair, the Scottish Parliament has recognised that estates may use this ploy to escape sanction for the continued killing of birds of prey on the moors and has thus included a provision in the new Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 to add other species, including RLPs, to the new licensing regime if it’s found that this is indeed what Scottish grouse moor owners are up to.

I’ve previously published photographs on here of new RLP release pens being built on grouse moors (here) and now another blog reader (thank you!) has sent me photographs of more new RLP release pens that he found on Friday on a well-known Scottish grouse moor in the Highlands:

The blog reader told me there were three identical RLP release pens at this site, approximately 50m apart, although only one is shown in the above photographs.

You can clearly see the size of the operation, including what looks like brand new hill tracks built across the moor to access the pens. I suspect the hill track campaign run by Scottish Ramblers might be interested in these.

I showed these photographs to Mark Avery at the weekend, who wryly pointed out, “There’ll have trouble arguing that this is traditional“.

Indeed.

‘It’s all so unfair!’ – shooting organisations still whining about new grouse moor licences in Scotland

Apparently there won’t be much grouse shooting taking place this year when the season opens on Monday (12th August). According to various reports from the grouse shooting industry, this is due to a combination of factors including a cold wet spring and an extraordinarily high worm burden on many moors.

Red grouse photo by Ruth Tingay

They may not be shooting many red grouse but they’re more than making up for it by shooting themselves in the foot instead, particularly in Scotland.

I’ve read quite a few newspaper articles in the last few days about the so-called Glorious 12th but a couple of them stood out – whoever is advising the shooting organisations on their PR strategy is hanging them out to dry! Not that I’m complaining, if they want to make complete fools of themselves it saves me a job.

The first article that made me laugh out loud was an opinion piece in The Scotsman by Peter Clark, BASC’s Scotland Director:

I’m not going to reproduce the whole article because it’s too dull – you can read it here if you want to – but I do want to highlight a couple of points.

His opening paragraph goes like this:

“Grouse shooting is crucial to rural upland communities, with the start of the season representing the culmination of a year’s hard work, grit, and determination. Unfortunately, this season doesn’t look as promising as previous ones, with counts looking less positive“.

I wondered if the grit he refers to is the tonnes and tonnes of toxic, medicated grit that grouse moor managers chuck out on the moors, with minimal regulation, to medicate the so-called ‘wild’ red grouse to stop the natural, cyclical population crashes caused by parasites? I somehow doubt it – the industry’s leaders prefer to keep this dodgy practice under the radar.

Peter’s article goes on (and on) about how much shooting is worth to the economy, but predictably he lumps ALL types of shooting together rather than just focusing on grouse shooting, presumably to make grouse shooting look more economically viable than it actually is. It’s a common tactic. He also fails to include in his calculations the economic costs of grouse shooting to society. Again, a common ploy by the defenders of this so-called ‘sport’.

But the real PR disaster comes further down the article where he’s discussing the new grouse moor licences that have been introduced for the first time this year as the Scottish Government’s latest attempt to stop the illegal persecution of birds of prey on grouse moors. Peter writes:

“We clearly communicated to Jim Fairlie, the Scottish Government’s minister for agriculture and connectivity, before the Wildlife Management Bill became an Act that he should pursue amendments to make it more practical.

These proposed adjustments included removing provisions for adding additional game bird species to the shooting licenses, eliminating expanded investigative powers for the Scottish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and refining the scope of what are considered to be “relevant offences” under the licencing scheme. These offences include those under wildlife legislation, ranging from the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, right through to the new Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Act 2023. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) was clear that the scope of the relevant offences was too broad, given that the sole focus of this licensing regime from its inception was to tackle raptor persecution. 

Despite presenting strong evidence of the risks these aspects pose to the sector, our specific proposed changes were not included. While the BASC and other shooting organisations successfully won amendments to the Bill and challenged many aspects of what was originally proposed, ultimately, the shooting community now faces new layers of regulation. 

Consequently, BASC is defending its members and seeking legal advice regarding the final version of the licensing scheme, which has now been implemented ahead of the start of the season“.

So let me get this right. Peter seems to be arguing that it’s just not fair that grouse shooting licences could be suspended and/or revoked if offences, other than those relating to raptor persecution, such as badger persecution or the hunting of foxes with more than two dogs, are uncovered on grouse moors!

“BASC is defending its members…” he says. What, by saying that BASC members shouldn’t be sanctioned if these other types of wildlife crime are uncovered??

Is he for real?!!

BASC is not alone in making the industry look ridiculous. In another article, published yesterday in the Guardian (here), BASC, along with industry lobby groups Scottish Land and Estates (SLE) and the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT) are also arguing that the licensable area to which these new regulations apply should be restricted to just the grouse moor area and that’s it’s ‘unnecessary and unfair‘ if the licence applies to other parts of an estate.

Eh? Where’s the logic in that? It’s blindingly obvious that estates would simply restrict their illegal activities to estate land next to the grouse moor, e.g. shooting a sleeping eagle as it roosts in trees on the edge of the moor, thus carefully avoiding culpability and a licence sanction, let alone a criminal prosecution.

The raptor killers have been exploiting this loophole for a long time – the most favoured practice being placing poisoned bait on the tops of fenceposts on an estate’s boundary line, especially at the top of a hill, making it more likely that a poisoned raptor will die further downhill on an adjoining estate and thus putting that neighbouring estate in the frame for the illegal poisoning.

As for the extent of the licence coverage being “unnecessary“, if that were so, why would the shooting organisations be so keen to limit the licence’s geographical extent if they’ve got nothing to hide?

There’s a quote at the end of the Guardian piece from Professor Colin Galbraith, Chair of NatureScot’s Board, discussing the entire coverage of an estate with a licence:

“If they’re not doing anything wrong, why worry about it?“.

Quite.

NatureScot provides clarification on its framework for suspending new grouse shoot licences

Last month I raised concerns about NatureScot’s proposed framework that it will use when making decisions about whether to modify, suspend or revoke the new grouse shoot licences that form part of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024 (that blog can be read here).

For new readers, this Act was introduced as the Scottish Government’s response to the continued widespread illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors. It will work on the basis that all red grouse shooting must now be licensed in Scotland under a section 16AA licence and if, on the civil burden of proof (i.e. the balance of probability) sufficient evidence is found that the licence has been breached (including evidence of illegal raptor persecution), the licence can be withdrawn as a sanction, preventing the shooting of red grouse on a particular estate for a period of up to five years.

Red grouse photo by Ruth Tingay

NatureScot published its proposed decision-making framework in July 2024, as follows:

guidance-framework-for-modifying-suspending-or-revoking-section-16aa-licences-_-naturescotDownload

My biggest concern about the framework was that NatureScot was proposing that a licence might not be suspended / revoked if “corrective action could effectively be taken to bring the licence holder in line with relevant licensing conditions, within a timeframe usually not exceeding 12 months“:

NatureScot didn’t define “corrective action” and I argued that the removal and replacement of a gamekeeper could be considered to be “corrective action”, in which case NatureScot would effectively be providing estates with a massive loophole to be be exploited because the estate could simply perpetually replace ‘dodgy’ gamekeepers that fell under suspicion and thus never suffer the consequences of a licence suspension/revocation for wildlife offences.

I’ve since written to NatureScot to ask for clarification on that issue and a few other concerns about the proposed framework. I’m grateful to Robbie Kernahan from NatureScot’s senior leadership team for his responses, as follows:

  1. Please can you explain whether evidence provided by the Scottish SPCA will be accepted in NatureScot’s decision making? And if it won’t be accepted, what the rationale is for that?

NatureScot can consider evidence gathered through SSPCA in line with the arrangements they are developing with Police Scotland.

    2. How will NatureSot define ‘minor’ and ‘of a serious nature’ when considering the level of non-compliance?

    We recognise there will be a spectrum of potential issues which may arise associated from non-compliance of conditions of licence, through to offences under the relevant legislation. For instance, returns not being made within the defined period – would be a compliance issue, but one which could be rectified without necessarily recourse to suspension or revocation, and may therefore be considered to be ‘minor’. NatureScot being satisfied that a relevant offence has been committed on the land by the licence holder or a person involved in managing the land to which the licence relates, is likely to be considered to be ‘of a serious nature’.

    3. How will NatureScot determine whether a relevant offence has been committed by ‘the licence holder or a person managing the land’? It seems to me that this difficulty is precisely why the licensing scheme has been introduced, because it’s often not possible to identify the individual responsible for an offence.

    NatureScot will consider such evidence as is made available to us.  We anticipate that the primary source of evidence will be provided by Police Scotland, supplemented by any additional intelligence available to us. This will be on a similar basis to the evidence provided to us in considering the restriction on use of General licences. There may be cases in which NS will be satisfied, based on the evidence available, that a relevant offence has been committed on the land by the licence holder or a person involved in managing the land to which the licence relates, and as you note, where that evidence would not necessarily satisfy the standard of proof required for a criminal conviction of the relevant offence.

    4. How will NatureScot define ‘corrective action’ when considering a decision to suspend/revoke a licence? Will that include the removal (by the estate) of an individual gamekeeper? If so, what are the implications for a prosecution (of that gamekeeper) or for vicarious liability (of the licence holder)? And why would the removal of one gamekeeper, presumably to be replaced by another one, solve the problem? How many times can an estate remove and replace a gamekeeper, without the estate being sanctioned?

    The corrective action we envisage in this is likely to be around administrative issues (supply of returns)  or other minor breaches which could be rectified quickly – not for wildlife crime.

    These responses provide some reassurance but not all are as convincing as they might have been.

    For example, on question 1, the arrangements between the SSPCA and Police Scotland for investigating and reporting suspected offences has not yet been made public (and may not become public) so the question of whether NatureScot will accept evidence provided by the SSPCA is still not clear. Remember, this arrangement between Police Scotland and the SSPCA relates only to the SSPCA’s increased investigatory powers for incidents where a live animal is not involved. The SSPCA is already a statutory reporting agency in its own right for offences under section 19 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, which is included in the ‘relevant list of offences’ [for which a licence may be suspended/revoked] under Naturescot’s proposed framework so it’s not clear to me why there’s so much opaqueness about whether evidence provided by the SSPCA will be accepted by NatureScot, especially in relation to offences under the Animal Health & Welfare Act.

    On question 2, I think NatureScot’s explanation is clear and its rationale for distinguishing between ‘minor‘ non-compliance breaches and those ‘of a serious nature‘ seems sensible and fair.

    On question 3, I think this is a reasonable response in as much as NatureScot can’t predict the type of evidence that will be available as each case (and thus available evidence) will be different. NatureScot has done a fairly good job so far of assessing evidence in relation to the General Licence restrictions it has imposed so we’ll have to wait and see whether that standard will be applicable for the suspension/revocation of section 16AA licences, which ultimately can be (and undoubtedly will be) challenged by the licence holder in a Sheriff Court.

    On question 4, the definition of “corrective action“, I’m pleased to see the clarification from NatureScot that corrective action “is likely” to be associated with administrative breaches and not for wildlife crime, although I would have preferred to have seen this written as “will be” rather than “is likely” to be.

    However, I’m still concerned that this “corrective action” loophole is included in the framework under the section headed ‘suspending or revoking a licence’. If NatureScot’s intention is to apply this measure for minor admin breaches only, why wasn’t it included in the section headed ‘modifying a licence’, which specifically deals with minor breaches, instead of the section headed ‘suspending and revoking a licence’, which deals with more serious breaches (i.e. criminal offences)?

    Hmm. One to watch, I think.

    Hen Harrier breeding success continues on Tarras Valley Nature Reserve

    Eight hen harrier chicks have fledged on the Tarras Valley Nature Reserve this year, continuing to buck the trend in south Scotland.

    The results of last year’s national Hen Harrier Survey demonstrated a steep regional population decline of 32% across the Southern Uplands and of four Special Protection Areas (SPAs) designated for hen harriers in this region, they were only breeding successfully in one – Tarras Valley.

    Three of this year’s eight chicks have been satellite tagged – two females (siblings) and a male – with funding provided by the RSPB and charity Hen Harrier Action.

    The three were named Ceilidh, Gilda and Red by Langholm Academy’s Head Girl and Boy and members of the raptor group and were tagged by licensed fieldworkers from the RSPB.

    Photos of Ceilidh, Gilda and Red, copyright RSPB Scotland:

    Tarras Valley was previously a driven grouse moor (known as Langholm Moor) but was bought from Buccleuch Estate a couple of years ago after an epic fundraising effort and is now a community-owned nature reserve, supported by the Langholm Initiative.

    The Tarras Valley Nature Reserve team is working towards the development of a five-year action plan and many restoration projects are already underway – have a look around the TVNR website here to see what’s already been started and what else is planned.

    Unsurprisingly, there are some in the grouse shooting industry who have been, and continue to be, critical of this community-owned project and seem desperate for it to fail, or at least for it to be perceived as a failure.

    I mentioned last month that the Chairman of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, Alex Hogg, recently told a Parliamentary Committee that the Tarras Valley Nature Reserve was a “species desert” and “there is nothing there at all” [now that it’s no longer being managed as a driven grouse moor].

    His assessment seemed to be based not on any detailed surveys he’d undertaken, but on a single car journey he made recently over the moor. He obviously missed the hen harriers and all the other resident and visiting birds, not to mention all the other species that have been recorded on site in the last couple of years.

    TVNR Bird List2Download

    It’s a common theme, this slagging-off former grouse moors that are now part of a significant rewilding effort, because the gamebird shooting industry wants everyone to believe that managing a moor for grouse is the best and only suitable option for the land.

    Some grouse moors do have big numbers of wader species, that’s without doubt, but it’s not a good indicator of wider biodiversity on the moor. The main reason those waders do well is because predators are ruthlessly and systematically destroyed, some legally, others illegally, for the benefit of producing an artificially-high population of red grouse for paying guests to shoot at. The benefit to the waders is simply a convenient by-product of that.

    Well done to the team at Tarras Valley Nature Reserve and the army of volunteers who are helping to encourage a wide suite of habitats and species to re-establish and thrive here, including those hen harriers.

    Grouse moor licensing – NatureScot provides grouse moor owners with a massive ‘get out of jail free’ card

    The Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, passed by the Scottish Parliament in March 2024, introduces a grouse moor licensing scheme in Scotland which begins in August.

    For new readers, this Act was introduced as the Scottish Government’s response to the continued widespread illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors. It will work on the basis that all red grouse shooting must now be licensed in Scotland under a section 16AA licence and if, on the civil burden of proof (i.e. the balance of probability) sufficient evidence is found that the licence has been breached (including evidence of illegal raptor persecution), the licence can be withdrawn as a sanction, preventing the shooting of red grouse on a particular estate for a period of up to five years.

    Red grouse photo by Pete Walkden

    This licensing scheme, although not without its flaws, has been generally welcomed by most in the conservation sector because, after decades of getting away with it, finally it looked like grouse moor owners would be held to account for the crimes committed by their employees (e.g. see here).

    However, from what I’ve just read, I think the licensing authority, NatureScot, has just handed the grouse moor owners a massive ‘get out of jail free’ card.

    NatureScot has recently published the framework it will use to outline its approach to modifying, suspending or revoking the section 16AA licence. We’re all familiar with the general principle of how NatureScot uses frameworks to implement decisions, e.g. see here for the framework it uses when deciding whether to impose a General Licence restriction on estates where there’s evidence of wildlife crime.

    That decision framework has been fairly robust, resulting in a number of GL restrictions (including the latest one yesterday on Lochindorb Estate) and as far as I can tell, all the appeals sanctioned estates have made against their GL restriction have failed (e.g. see Leadhills Estate failed appeal here, Moy Estate failed appeal here, Invercauld Estate failed appeal here).

    In fact the ‘ultimate’ appeal against NatureScot’s decision framework to impose a General Licence restriction, a judicial review brought by Raeshaw Estate, demonstrated that NatureScot’s framework was based on solid principles (see here) although I’d still argue that the GL restriction is only useful as a reputational driver, not as a serious sanction because sanctioned estates can simply apply to NatureScot for an individual licence that permits them to continue doing the activities that are supposedly forbidden under the General Licence restriction (see here for background discussion).

    Indeed, it’s precisely because the General Licence restriction hasn’t been effective (in stopping raptor persecution on grouse moors) that the Scottish Government decided to bring in the more serious sanction of grouse moor licensing.

    I think many of us have been focused on the detail of the new Grouse Moor Code of Practice that outlines the things that grouse moor owners can and can’t do under the new grouse moor licensing scheme, and none of us gave much thought to the framework that NatureScot would devise to help it make decisions on licence withdrawals. That was a mistake on our part.

    Here is the decision framework that NatureScot will use to determine whether grouse moor licences will be revoked under the new legislation:

    Guidance – Framework for modifying, suspending or revoking Section 16AA Licences _ NatureScotDownload

    I’ve not had time to go through this in detail but already I can see areas that need questioning, such as why the evidence NatureScot will use to base its decision on modifying, suspending or revoking a licence will only be accepted from Police Scotland and NatureScot staff. Why won’t evidence from the Scottish SPCA be used? Surely this is an oversight, given that the new legislation has created increased investigatory powers for the SSPCA and the relevant offences for which a licence may be revoked include those under the section 19 of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006, an area of expertise for the SSPCA.

    However, the most glaring issue I’ve found so far in this framework is this:

    What the hell is ‘corrective action’?? What does that even mean? Does it mean that if a grouse moor estate sacks one of its gamekeepers and replaces him/her with a different one, the estate gets to keep its section 16AA grouse shooting licence because the estate has been seen to have taken ‘corrective action’?

    Does that mean that a grouse shooting estate can continually replace gamekeepers, every time an offence has been committed, to avoid ever having its 16AA licence revoked?

    If that is what ‘corrective action’ means then this new grouse shooting licence isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. Raptor persecution will continue, criminal gamekeepers will just be moved around to work on different estates (this already happens) and grouse moor owners will never be held to account.

    I don’t have time to write anymore today but I’ll be talking with others, including legal advisors, and questions will need to be asked of Ministers.

    In haste…

    UPDATE 8 August 2024: NatureScot provides clarification on its framework for suspending new grouse moor licences (here)

    General Licence restriction imposed on Lochindorb, a grouse-shooting estate on edge of Cairngorms National Park, after evidence of raptor persecution

    Statement from NatureScot, 17 July 2024:

    GENERAL LICENCE RESTRICTED ON CAIRNGORMS ESTATE

    NatureScot has restricted the use of general licences on Lochindorb Estate, near Grantown-on-Spey, for three years.

    An RPUK map showing the general boundary of Lochindorb Estate – details provided by Andy Wightman’s Who Owns Scotland website

    The decision was made on the basis of evidence provided by Police Scotland of wildlife crime against birds.

    This evidence included a red kite found poisoned with an insecticide in 2021 near to a lapwing bait on land managed at the time by the estate [Ed: here], and a red kite shot on Lochindorb estate in 2023 [Ed: here].

    The poisoned red kite and the lapwing used as poisoned bait. Photo by RPUK blog reader

    Donald Fraser, NatureScot’s Head of Wildlife Management, said: “We have decided, in discussion with Police Scotland, to suspend the use of general licences on this property for three years until March 2027, given the persecution of red kites which has taken place on Lochindorb Estate and on neighbouring land managed by them at the time of the incident. 

    “NatureScot is committed to using all the tools we have available to tackle wildlife crime. This measure will help to protect wild birds in the area, while still allowing necessary land management activities to take place.

    “We believe this is a proportionate response to protect wild birds in the area and prevent further wildlife crime. We will continue to work closely with Police Scotland and consider information they provide on cases which may warrant restricting general licences.

    “The estate may still apply for individual licences; however, these will be subject to enhanced record-keeping and reporting requirements and will be closely monitored to ensure adherence with licence conditions.”

    General licences allow landowners or land managers to carry out control of common species of wild birds, such as crows and magpies, to protect crops or livestock, without the need to apply for an individual licence.

    In addition to this restriction, there are currently four other restrictions in place in Scotland: on Moy Estate in Highland, Invercauld Estate in the Cairngorms National Park, Lochan Estate in Perthshire and Millden Estate in Angus.

    ENDS

    Here is a map from NatureScot showing the area of Lochindorb Estate where the General Licence restriction applies. This restriction prohibits the use of General Licences 01, 02 and 03 on that land from 16th July 2024 up to and including 15th July 2027.

    I presume then, that the 56 year old gamekeeper arrested last year as part of the investigation into the shooting of the red kite on Lochindorb Estate has not been charged. If he had, this General Licence restriction would have been delayed until court proceedings had finished.

    It’ll also be interesting to see whether this General Licence restriction affects Lochindorb Estate’s ability to apply for a section 16AA grouse shooting licence under the new Wildlife Management & Muirburn Act 2024.

    For new readers, this Act was introduced as the Scottish Government’s response to the continued widespread illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors. It will work on the basis that all red grouse shooting must now be licensed in Scotland under a section 16AA licence and if, on the civil burden of proof (i.e. the balance of probability) sufficient evidence is found that the licence has been breached (including evidence of illegal raptor persecution), the licence can be withdrawn as a sanction, preventing the shooting of red grouse on a particular estate for a given period.

    My guess is that Lochindorb will still be able to apply for a section 16AA grouse shooting licence, even though the estate is now under a 3-year General Licence restriction, because these offences were committed before the new legislation was enacted, so it will be deemed ‘unfair’ to apply the legislation retrospectively.

    That will also mean that the other four grouse-shooting estates currently serving a general Licence restriction after evidence of raptor persecution was uncovered on their land (Moy Estate in the Monadhliaths, Invercauld Estate in the Cairngorms National Park, Lochan Estate in Strathbraan and Millden Estate in the Angus Glens) will also be able to apply for a section 16AA licence to shoot red grouse this year.

    Marvellous.

    Why Scottish grouse moors will have to stop slaughtering golden eagles – opinion piece in The Scotsman

    The Scotsman has published my opinion piece today about the potential impact of the new licensing scheme for grouse shooting in Scotland.

    You can read it on The Scotsman website (here) and it’s reproduced below:

    I call them ‘The Untouchables’. Those within the grouse-shooting industry who have been getting away with illegally killing golden eagles, and other raptor species such as hen harriers, buzzards and red kites, for decades.

    They don’t fear prosecution because there are few people around those remote, privately owned glens to witness the ruthless and systematic poisoning, trapping and shooting of these iconic birds. If the police do come looking, more often than not they’re met with an Omertá-esque wall of silence from those who, with an archaic Victorian mindset, still perceive birds of prey to be a threat to their lucrative red grouse shooting interests.

    For a successful prosecution, Police Scotland and the Crown Office must be able to demonstrate “beyond reasonable doubt” that a named individual committed the crime. As an example of how difficult this is, in 2010 a jar full of golden eagle leg rings was found on a mantelpiece during a police raid of a gamekeeper’s house in the Highlands. Each of those unique leg ring numbers could be traced back to an individual eagle.

    The gamekeeper couldn’t account for how he came to be in possession of those rings, but the police couldn’t prove that he had killed those eagles and cut off their legs to remove the rings as trophies.

    Despite the remains of two red kites, six illegal traps, an illegally trapped hen harrier and poisoned bait also being found on the estate, the gamekeeper was fined a mere £1,500 for being in possession of one dead red kite, that was found mutilated in the back of his estate vehicle.

    In another case in 2010, three golden eagles were found poisoned on a grouse-shooting estate in the Highlands over just a few weeks. Even though the police found an enormous cache of the lethal poison – carbofuran – locked in a shed to which the head gamekeeper held a key, they couldn’t demonstrate that he was the person who had laid the poisoned baits that had killed the eagles. This meant he was fined £3,300 for the possession of the banned poison, but wasn’t prosecuted for killing the eagles.

    In recent years, researchers have been fitting small satellite tags to young golden eagles which allows us to track their movements across Scotland, minute by minute. Analysis has shown that between 2004 and 2016, almost one third of tagged eagles (41 of 131 birds) ‘disappeared’ in suspicious circumstances, mostly on or next to grouse moors. 

    Satellite-tagged golden eagle prior to fledging. This eagle was tagged in 2014, ‘disappeared’ on a Strathbraan grouse moor in 2016 and it’s satellite tag was found wrapped in heavy lead sheeting in the River Braan in 2020. Photo by Duncan Orr-Ewing

    The lengths the criminals will go to avoid detection were exposed in 2020 when a walker found a satellite tag that had been cut off an eagle, wrapped in heavy lead sheeting – presumably to block the signal – and dumped in the River Braan. The tag’s unique identification number told us it belonged to a young eagle tagged in the Trossachs in 2014. This eagle had disappeared without trace from a Perthshire grouse moor in 2016, in an area where eight other tagged eagles had vanished in similar suspicious circumstances. Nobody has been prosecuted.

    The remains of the satellite tag that had been cut off the eagle, wrapped in lead sheeting and dumped in a river. Photo by Ian Thomson, RSPB Scotland

    The most recent disappearance of a tagged eagle happened just before Christmas 2023, close to the boundary of a grouse moor in the Moorfoot Hills. ‘Merrick’ was translocated to the area in 2022 as part of the South of Scotland Golden Eagle Project. Her tag data told us she was asleep in a tree immediately before she disappeared. Police found her blood and a few feathers at the scene and concluded she’d been shot. Who shoots a sleeping eagle? Again, no one has been prosecuted.

    This situation has persisted for decades because although golden eagles have been afforded legal protection for the last 70 years, to date there hasn’t been a single successful prosecution for killing one. The chances of getting caught and prosecuted have been so low that the risk of committing the crime has been worth taking, over and over again. Until now. 

    Earlier this year, the Scottish Parliament passed new legislation, the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, which introduces a licensing scheme for grouse shooting. For the first time in 170 years, red grouse shooting can now only take place on estates that have been granted a licence to shoot. 

    How will this stop the slaughtering of golden eagles and other birds of prey on Scotland’s grouse moors? Well, the licence can be revoked for up to five years if there is evidence of wildlife crime on the estate. Significantly, this will be based on the civil burden of proof which has a lower evidential threshold than the criminal burden of proof. 

    This means that instead of the police having to prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that a named individual was responsible, they now have to prove that it’s based only on the ‘balance of probability’. This is a real game-changer because instead of being perpetually ‘untouchable’, now there are real, tangible consequences for the grouse shooting industry if these crimes continue. Estates will no longer be able to rely on the implausible protestation that ‘a big boy did it and ran away’.

    As with any legislation, it will only be effective if it is strongly enforced. The jury’s out on that and we’ll be keeping a close eye on performance, but as the licensing scheme is based on a policy of mistrust, the Scottish Government has sent an unequivocal message to the grouse shooting industry. We all know what’s been going on and the public will no longer tolerate it.

    ENDS

    What did Minister Jim Fairlie say to SLE’s Moorland Conference in June 2024?

    Following the Scottish Parliament’s approval of the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, which introduces a licensing scheme for the shooting of red grouse in Scotland in another attempt to bring an end to the ongoing illegal killing of birds of prey on many Scottish grouse moors, the landowners’ lobby group, Scottish Land & Estates (SLE) hosted a Moorland Conference on 11 June 2024 and invited Minister Jim Fairlie to speak.

    I was interested in what the Minister would say so I asked the Scottish Government for a copy of his notes/speech.

    This is what the Scottish Government sent to me:

    Fairlie speech SLE Moorland Conference 11 June 2024Download

    There was a caveat at the end of the letter from the Scottish Government that went like this:

    “I would like to advise you that the actual speech by Minister Jim Fairlie, when he addressed the Moorland Conference on 11 June 2024, is likely to differ to the copy of the speech and/or prompt notes provided to him“.

    I don’t think there’s anything particularly surprising in the copy of the speech that’s been provided – there’s nothing here that Fairlie didn’t say during his time on the parliamentary committee that scrutinised the Bill at stages one and two, nor during his time as Minister as he steered it through the Stage 3 debate before the Parliament voted to approve the Bill.

    Nevertheless, it’s always a good idea to keep track of what Ministers are saying at private meetings, not least to be able to hold them to account if they renege on their previous commitments but also to be able to side-step any hyped-up claims of what’s been said by anyone wishing to present a distorted narrative.

    For example, I read a review of the conference that focused heavily on Fairlie’s favourable comments about the grouse shooting industry but was predictably light on his comments linking illegal raptor persecution to grouse shooting.

    Fairlie has always been clear about that undeniable link, especially during his time on the Rural Affairs Committee when it was scrutinising the Bill (here) so it’s good to see him reiterate that again to the grouse shooting industry, even though it was sandwiched between some top level fawning.

    Grouse moor licensing in Scotland will be in place for start of this year’s grouse-shooting season

    Part of the Wildlife Management & Muirburn (Scotland) Act 2024, which requires that the shooting of all red grouse will require a licence, is set to be in place for the opening of the grouse-shooting season on the Inglorious 12th August 2024.

    For new readers, this Act was introduced as the Scottish Government’s response to the continued widespread illegal killing of birds of prey on grouse moors. It will work on the basis that all red grouse shooting must now be licensed in Scotland and if, on the civil burden of proof (i.e. the balance of probability) sufficient evidence is found that the licence has been breached (including evidence of illegal raptor persecution), the licence can be withdrawn as a sanction, preventing the shooting of red grouse on a particular estate for a given period.

    Red grouse photo by Pete Walkden

    The Act achieved royal assent on 30th April 2024 (see here) and we’ve been waiting for a formal commencement date (i.e. when the Act becomes legally enforceable).

    The legislation required for commencement has now been published and confirms the widely anticipated expectation that the grouse shooting licence would be ready for the start of this year’s season (complete with the associated Grouse Moor Code of Practice) and that the Muirburn licence won’t be ready until at least next year.

    The commencement legislation in the form of a statutory instrument can be read here (and is reproduced below). It’s a necessarily turgid piece of technical legalese but the most important information is the commencement date, and that all looks on track.

    Grouse moor owners will shortly be applying to NatureScot for their 16AA licences, which ties them to comply with the associated and soon-to-be-completed Grouse Moor Code of Practice. It’ll be interesting to see how long it takes for an estate to breach the terms of its licence and how any subsequent enforcement and sanction is handled.

    Here’s the statutory instrument announcing the commencement dates:

    Agriculture Bill amendments could stop big farming payouts for grouse shooting estates

    Press release from REVIVE, the coalition for grouse moor reform in Scotland, ahead of today’s debate on the Agriculture Bill:

    AGRICULTURE BILL AMENDMENTS COULD STOP BIG FARMING PAYOUTS FOR GROUSE SHOOTING ESTATES

    REVIVE, the coalition for grouse moor reform, has welcomed amendments to the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill that could end generous public funding for grouse shooting estates.

    The Stage 3 bill is due to be debated by the Scottish Parliament this afternoon (Tuesday 18 June).

    The amendments (#37, #38 and #39) were submitted by Scottish Greens MSP Arianne Burgess. They seek to address the issue of shooting estates being indirectly supported by farm subsidies, with some estates receiving hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money each year.

    The amendments would allow ministers to:

    #37: rule out specific land uses from getting agricultural subsidies in the future;

    #38: end public funding for estates where the primary activity on the land is driven grouse shooting;

    #39: ensure that wildlife criminals and irresponsible owners cannot benefit from public funding.

    Driven grouse moor landscape in the Cairngorms National Park. Photo by Ruth Tingay

     Eliza Chiswell, REVIVE Campaigner, said: 

    “REVIVE welcomes Ariane Burgess MSP’s amendments to the Agriculture Bill that would potentially stop grouse shooting estates from receiving public money.

    “At its launch in 2018, REVIVE expressed shock that shooting estates could be receiving subsidies and it continues to be very concerned that large sums of public money is indirectly supporting, amongst other things, the killing of hundreds of thousands of foxes, stoats, weasels and crows so that more hundreds of thousands of grouse can be shot for entertainment.

    “It is deeply worrying, for example, that an estate like Invermark, which is “principally a sporting estate” [see here] in 2023 received public money to the tune of £213,545 [see here].

    “REVIVE has asked its supporters to tell all MSPs that these amendments have strong public support because they ensure that valuable public money supports food production rather than shooting. We hope the amendments receive strong cross-party support and prove to be successful.”

    ENDS

    The Scottish Greens have also issued a press statement ahead of today’s debate:

    The Scottish Government must curb public subsidies for shooting estates and instead use it to support small farmers and the transition to greener agriculture, say the Scottish Greens.

    The call comes ahead of the Scottish Parliament voting on the Agriculture and Rural Communities (Scotland) Bill, which will have its final vote this week.

    The Scottish Greens rural affairs spokesperson, Ariane Burgess MSP, will be moving amendments that would end subsidies for land that is dominated by grouse moors and boost support for small farmers.

    Shooting estates are being indirectly supported by farm subsidies, with one example cited by the REVIVE coalition as having received over £200,000 a year. This allows them to continue the damaging practices of widespread burning of peatland vegetation and the unnecessary killing of our wildlife.

    Ms Burgess, said: “It’s grossly unfair that enormous shooting estates are benefiting from subsidies paid for by the taxpayer. 

    “This is public money that should be invested in supporting farmers and rural communities to transition to net-zero, but instead it’s being pocketed by giant landowners and is effectively subsidising the management of Scotland’s uplands for bloodsports.

    “My amendments would prohibit subsidies for driven grouse moors, and ensure that Scottish Ministers cannot hand out public money to wildlife criminals. I hope that all MSPs who are concerned about animal welfare will support these amendments.

    “The last 14 years have been painful for a lot of people. The last thing we should be doing in a cost of living crisis is handing out subsidies to wealthy landowners for organised cruelty.”

    Ms Burgess will also be moving amendments that would support farmers to reduce the environmental impacts of the agriculture industry and assist small to medium scale farmers, crofters and growers to purchase land for food production.

    Ms Burgess added: “Small scale farmers play an invaluable role in our food production and in their communities, but, with the current pressures, many are finding it harder to run a sustainable business. 

    “Many of them are young and new entrants, and I hope that this bill will provide them with extra support to allow them to purchase and enhance the land around them.”

    ENDS

    The Stage 3 debate on the Agriculture Bill is expected to start around 3pm in the main chamber and can be watched live on Scottish Parliament TV here.