Police Scotland appeal for information (26 August 2024):
APPEAL FOR INFORMATION FOLLOWING DEATH OF OSPREY IN PERTHSHIRE
We are appealing for information following the death of an osprey in Perthshire.
On Monday, 12 August, 2024 the injured osprey was found in distress by a gamekeeper in the Glen Doll area. The SSPCA was called and the bird taken to the wildlife resource centre in Fishcross for treatment, however it had to be euthanised due to the severity of the injuries.
Following further investigations, x-rays revealed the osprey had been shot and Police Scotland was contacted.
Officers are appealing for anyone with information on what happened to contact them.
Detective Constable Daniel Crilley, Wildlife Crime Investigation, said: “It’s illegal to kill any protected species and we’re working with partner agencies to fully investigate the circumstances.
“Information from the local community is vital and I’d ask anyone who was in the area around 12 August and thinks they may have information which could assist our enquiries to come forward. We’re keen to speak to anyone who may have seen anything suspicious or has information about shooting activity in the area.”
Anyone with information is urged to contact Police Scotland on 101 quoting reference 1671 of 26 August. Alternatively, you can call Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.
It’s unusual for an Osprey to be shot in the UK, given that they’re a fish-eating specialist and therefore no threat to gamebirds such as red grouse, pheasants or partridges.
Police Scotland’s appeal for information doesn’t say what type of gun was used (shotgun or air rifle) which would have been evident from the x-ray, nor the extent of the osprey’s injuries (i.e. was it able to still fly? If not, it was obviously shot close to where it was found), so it’s quite difficult to comment in detail.
However, given it was found on the opening day of the annual grouse shooting season, in the Angus Glens, an area dominated by driven grouse moors and with a long, long history of illegal raptor persecution, then it’s difficult not to perceive this osprey has been shot by somebody out on a day’s grouse shooting.
Perhaps a case of mistaken identity? One too many sloe gins? Something similar has happened before, that time it was a buzzard shot during a pheasant shoot (see here).
Oh, and the osprey shooting happened inside the Cairngorms National Park.
What better advertisement for the gamebird shooting industry, eh?
This will be an interesting investigation to follow. If it was shot on a moor when a grouse shoot was taking place, how will that impact on the estate’s new licence?
Over the last few months I’ve heard from various well-placed sources that hen harrier brood meddling has not taken place this year.
For new blog readers, hen harrier brood meddling is a conservation sham sanctioned by DEFRA as part of its ludicrous ‘Hen Harrier Action Plan‘ and carried out by Natural England, in cahoots with the very industry responsible for the species’ catastrophic decline in England. In general terms, the plan involves the removal of hen harrier chicks and eggs from grouse moors, rear them in captivity, then release them back into the uplands just in time for the start of the grouse-shooting season where they’ll be illegally killed. It’s plainly bonkers. For more background see here and here.
Photo: Laurie Campbell
I’ve asked Natural England (the licensing authority for hen harrier brood meddling) about the status of brood meddling this year but they haven’t responded yet.
If the rumours are true, and brood meddling hasn’t taken place this year despite there being broods available to meddle with, it raises a lot of questions, not just about what happened this year but also about any future prospects for brood meddling, whether that be as part of the continuing so-called scientific trial or the full roll-out of brood meddling as a recurrent annual practice, which is what the grouse shooting industry wants (laughingly calling it a ‘conservation licence’)!
Long-term blog readers will know that the initial brood meddling trial ran for five years from 2018-2022 inclusive. At the end of that trial, the brood meddling project board (which unbelievably includes vested-interest representatives from the grouse shooting industry such as the Moorland Association and GWCT, as well as the licence applicant, Jemima Parry Jones, who’s paid by the MA to do the brood meddling) decided it wanted to extend the trial and Natural England agreed to a further five year trial period (here).
An initial two-year extension licence was granted for 2023 and 2024 (NE isn’t permitted to grant a licence for longer than a two-year period in one go) with a few changes to the licence conditions as requested by the ‘project board’, including:
An increase in the number of times a pair of breeding hen harriers can have their nest brood meddled (previously, intervention was restricted to prevent the same pair being brood meddled in successive years – this time intervention was permitted in successive years);
No further requirement to satellite tag ALL the brood meddled chicks, only a sub-sample;
In the case of the North Pennines Special Protection Area (SPA) Southern Zone, no further requirement for brood meddled birds from this Zone to be released back into this Zone specifically, but still must be released into the wider North Pennines SPA (the project board had sought to remove entirely the requirement for brood meddled birds to be returned to the same SPA from where they were originally removed – this is important, I’ll come back to this point below).
For more detail about the changes to the licence conditions for 2023/2024 extension, see this Case Submission to Natural England’s High Risk Casework Panel in April 2023 and released to me under FoI:
So if the brood meddling ‘project board’ was so keen for an extension to the brood meddling trial/sham, why would they only take advantage of the extension for one year (2023) instead of the two years for which it was licensed? Just adding a one year extension to the trial doesn’t seem sufficient time (to me) to provide the data required to address the questions the so-called scientific trial was seeking to address, which is why NE approved a two-year licence extension within an extended five-year trial extension.
Well, there are a few hypotheses circulating about that. Of course these are all speculative at the moment because we don’t know for sure that brood meddling didn’t take place this year, but let’s assume for now that it didn’t.
The first hypothesis is that the grouse shooting industry simply hasn’t been able to find sufficient ‘receptor sites’ where the brood meddled chicks would be released post-captivity. We know, from an official internal NE report released via FoI, dated April 2022 (heading into the last year of the initial five year trial), that only four estates had been involved as ‘intervention sites’ (i.e. their hen harriers were brood meddled: one nest in 2019, two nests in 2020 and two nests in 2021) and only three estates had functioned as ‘receptor sites’. That’s not very many estates willing to engage in hen harrier brood meddling, is it?
Incidentally, data from the 2022 breeding season show there were four broods meddled with that year and six broods meddled with in 2024. I haven’t seen any information about how many estates were involved (as intervention or receptor sites) but the figure must still be staggeringly low.
Out of a purported 190 grouse moor member estates, the Moorland Association seems only to have found a handful willing to participate in the brood meddling trial, whether as an ‘intervention’ site or a ‘receptor’ site. I wonder why that is?
It could be that a lot of grouse shooting estates don’t see the point of getting involved in brood meddling because they’ve already got a tried and tested way of removing hen harriers from their moors (i.e. illegally killing them) and the chance of getting caught and prosecuted for it is virtually nil (see here).
It could be that a lot of grouse shooting estates won’t get involved in brood meddling unless it’s guaranteed that after the ‘trial’ period, brood meddling will be rolled out as a standard, legal technique that grouse moor owners can use every year to get rid of hen harriers. There’s some evidence that this hypothesis is more than speculative, as follows:
Cast you minds back to Valentine’s Day 2023 when the Natural England Board and some of its senior staff had a day out at Swinton Estate in Nidderdale (an estate at the epicentre of hen harrier brood meddling and also an estate with a long track record of confirmed and suspected raptor persecution offences, including some relating to hen harriers). I wrote about that day out (here and here).
After their soiree on the Swinton grouse moors, Natural England’s Board and senior staff went out to dinner and invited some fascinating guests. The NE Board had been issued with an internal briefing document to help them navigate what were described as “elephant traps and tricky issues”, which included hen harrier brood meddling. Here’s the briefing document, released to me under FoI – pay attention on page 3 under the heading Future of Brood Management, where it says this:
“NE Board has taken the in-principle decision to continue participation I [sic] brood management on a scientific trial basis. The MA is the principal partner in the trail [sic], promoting participation by estates, organising and funding release facilities and enabling access for our fieldworkers to tag and monitor chicks. Along with all our brood management partners, they are rightly proud of the success so far and are clear that an estate’s appetite for tolerating or welcoming breeding hen harriers is directly related to the availability of brood management as a ‘pressure valve’ to avoid a build-up of breeding hen harriers. The MA has supported the proposal of extending the trial but is clear that this should lead to the eventual wide availability of the technique as a practical and affordable tool“. (Emphasis added by me).
Also of interest in this internal briefing document is the news that the Moorland Association had asked for a ‘fixed release site’ (for brood meddled hen harriers) instead of having to release the birds back the same SPA from where they were removed. The MA had suggested Moorhouse NNR in Upper Teesdale or Ingleborough NNR in the Yorkshire Dales National Park as potential fixed sites. NE didn’t support this and the briefing document states:
“[REDACTED] judgement is that this represents too great a risk to the ‘NNR-brand’ as a whole and individual sites as long as illegal persecution remains a real threat to any hen harrier nest: additionally the MA should have sufficient contacts with access to vast tracts of suitable land if a long term commitment to hen harrier recovery is their goal“. [Emphasis is mine].
So there’s that issue I flagged earlier about the difficulty the MA appears to be having in providing ‘receptor’ sites. Funnily enough, this issue has also been raised again this year in a Moorland Association blog posted on 12 April 2024 (here), where there is quite a lot of moaning about having to release brood meddled hen harriers back in to the same SPA from where they were removed, and of course the now obligatory veiled threat about this potentially being in breach of IUCN guidelines, an argument the MA has also used recently in relation to the Police-led Hen Harrier Taskforce and one that the National Wildlife Crime Unit has summarily dismissed (see here).
A further hypothesis that’s been put forward about why the hen harrier brood meddling sham appears to have collapsed this year is that the Moorland Association probably doesn’t want to have to keep spending a fortune on paying for satellite tags when those tags are the primary source of evidence that demonstrate that brood meddling has not put an end to hen harrier persecution – indeed, last year (2023) was the worst on record since the brood meddling sham began in 2018, with 33 individual hen harriers reported as being illegally killed or to have disappeared in suspicious circumstances, including 13 brood meddled birds, and most of them on or close to driven grouse moors:
Over the next few weeks there should be more information available about this year’s hen harrier breeding season, including the number of breeding attempts, breeding failures and successes, the number of hen harriers satellite-tagged by Natural England and by the RSPB in various regions, the number of dead/missing hen harriers reported so far this year, and whether brood meddling did take place this year or whether the whole sham has just come tumbling down.
Whatever has happened this year, Natural England’s two-year extended brood meddling licence (2023-2024) has now expired and we can expect a substantial review of the seven-year ‘scientific trial’ which will be used to determine whether the trial is now closed or extended again, whether the grouse shooting industry will get a permanent ‘conservation licence’ (ha!) to continually remove hen harriers from the grouse moors, or whether the new Government will be pressed into dropping the whole sorry pantomime and instead focus its attention (and our money) into taking more effective action against the hen harrier killers.
As they’ve done in previous years (e.g. see here), members of the Hunt Saboteurs Association were out in force today in northern England to disrupt grouse shooting on the Inglorious 12th.
Today they were on the Wemmergill Estate in County Durham. If Wemmergill sounds familiar it’s because it’s previously featured on this blog (here, here and here) and on Mark Avery’s blog (here).
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 TheScotsman 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?“.
Derbyshire Police are appealing for information after a sparrowhawk died from gunshot injuries.
The injured sparrowhawk was found by a member of the public on 24 July 2024 in the Walton area of Chesterfield and was taken to the Pet Samaritans Animal Sanctuary in Old Whittington.
A Derbyshire Police spokesperson said:
“The injured Sparrow Hawk was found by a member of public in the Walton area on July 24. On closer inspection, it has become apparent that the bird has been shot by what we believe to be an air rifle.
Sadly, despite the best efforts from the staff at Pet Samaritans, the Sparrow Hawk has since died from its injuries.
Sparrow Hawks are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 which means that it is illegal to intentionally kill, harm or physically move them. Anyone found guilty of killing a Sparrow Hawk could face an unlimited fine and up to six months imprisonment“.
If you have any information about this incident please contact Derbyshire Police’s Rural Crime Team via 101 or email: drct@derbyshire.police.uk and quote reference number 24*454772.
A man has been charged with killing two wild birds with an air rifle after police received reports of someone seen dumping a Tawny Owl and a Woodpigeon in a wheelie bin in Colne, Lancashire, in March 2024.
Joe Morris, 28, of White Grove, Colne, Lancashire has been charged with killing a non-Schedule 1 bird, causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal and possessing an air weapon in a public place.
He is due to appear before Blackburn Magistrates on 22 August 2024.
UPDATE 29 April 2025: Lancashire man convicted of shooting Tawny Owl in local park (here)
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.
A couple of weeks ago I blogged about the new National Hen Harrier Taskforce – a police-led initiative to tackle the ongoing persecution of hen harriers on driven grouse moors (see here).
This hen harrier was euthanised after suffering catastrophic injuries in an illegal trap set next to its nest on a grouse moor in 2019. Photo by Ruth Tingay
The Taskforce’s proposed strategy for tackling hen harrier persecution on grouse moors is based on a new framework designed to tackle all types of Serious Organised Crime that was launched by the Home Office last year (see here). It’s based on a three-step plan of ‘Clear, Hold, Build‘.
Step one (‘Clear‘) involves police officers relentlessly pursuing organised crime members within a community (or in this case, an industry), using all available powers to ‘clear’ the offenders from specific locations.
Step two (‘Hold‘) sees officers undertake continued high visibility activity to ensure other serious organised criminals can’t move in and operate in the vacuum created by step one.
Step three (‘Build‘) relates to building local community resilience and trust, through partnership-working, to ensure that Serious Organised Crime doesn’t reoccur at that location.
When I wrote about the Taskforce a few weeks ago (here) I mentioned a similar police initiative, called Operation Artemis, that was launched to tackle hen harrier persecution on grouse moors in 2004, some twenty years ago. That initiative crashed and burned within three years because grouse moor owners refused to cooperate with the police. The new Taskforce has a more sophisticated theoretical approach and stronger enforcement support, but the basic premise is the same: establish a partnership between landowners and the police to target the hen harrier killers.
However, as we’ve come to learn, partnership-working is only successful if all partners have the same objective and there are no conflicts of interest.
In an extraordinary blog posted on the Moorland Association’s website on 8 July 2024, (the Moorland Association is the lobby group representing grouse moor owners in England), it is suggested that the police are ‘bypassing regulation’ by asking grouse moor owners to sign a letter giving permission for the police to enter land at any time and use equipment for the prevention and detection of crime. This includes the installation of cameras, proximity alarms and other equipment on and around hen harrier nest and roost sites.
The Moorland Association is advising its members not to sign any letters authorising police access without first taking legal advice because, it suggests, this is an attempt to ‘bypass regulation on surveillance’.
I don’t see any issue with the Moorland Association advising its members to seek legal advice – that’s standard due diligence – but to state that the police are ‘bypassing regulation on surveillance‘ seems to me to be incendiary.
Here is a copy of the Moorland Association’s blog, screen grabbed here because it has already been altered from its original version (more on that below).
I’m not sure who wrote the Moorland Association’s blog because there’s no name attached to it but my money would be on the author being the Moorland Association’s CEO, Andrew Gilruth. Why do I think that? Well Mr Gilruth built an impressive reputation for presenting distorted information when he worked as Director for Communications for the GWCT (e.g. see here, here and especially here) and the Moorland Association’s blog has all the familiar hallmarks.
For example, the opening paragraph of the Moorland Association’s blog goes like this:
‘Most will remember the irony of RSPB staff falling foul of the courts in order to try and catch others breaking the law – and then expressing outrage when their evidence was thrown out of court here. In short, judges felt the police could not use others to circumvent the law on covert surveillance‘.
I’m not sure of the relevance of including this statement about the RSPB’s video evidence in the context of the Moorland Association’s blog about police surveillance, other than to (a) try yet again to undermine the credibility of the RSPB and (b) contrive an image that the police have previously ‘used others’ to ‘circumvent the law on covert surveillance‘.
It is accurate for the Moorland Association to point to the court case in 2015 where the judge ruled the RSPB’s video evidence as inadmissible. As regular blog readers will know, there have been a number of court cases where the RSPB’s evidence has been ruled inadmissible (e.g. here and here) but what the Moorland Association’s blog conveniently fails to point out is that there have also been a number of cases where the RSPB’s video evidence has been accepted by the courts and has, in fact, been crucial to the conviction of criminal gamekeepers, including these recent cases in 2022 here, again in 2022 here, and in 2023 here.
Far from the police ‘using others to circumvent the law‘, the police have worked legitimately and lawfully in partnership with the RSPB many times to convict criminal gamekeepers, both with and without the use of covert surveillance.
This successful partnership really agitates many in the game-shooting industry and I’d argue that’s the reason the Moorland Association’s blog opens with that paragraph – to infer that the police have a track record of ‘circumventing the law on covert surveillance‘ and to place this thought firmly in their members’ minds before moving on to discuss why the Moorland Association believes the police’s latest tactics on the Hen Harrier Taskforce are of ‘concern‘.
The rest of the blog appears to be a distortion of what the police are asking landowners to do. It’s surely obvious that the police aren’t asking landowners for permission to undertake covert surveillance – it would hardly be ‘covert’ if they’re telling the landowner that’s what they intend to do!
Rather, what it seems the police are actually asking for is permission to visit the moor at any time (Step one of the three-step strategy) and to install equipment (including proximity alarms and cameras) ‘on and around nest and roost sites‘, to catch the criminals that are killing hen harriers. You know, the criminals that the landowners and their gamekeepers claim to have no knowledge of, but who are repeatedly turning up on their estates, armed, to commit serious crime.
This isn’t covert surveillance in the sense of spying on people who live and work on that estate – hen harriers don’t tend to nest close to people’s houses and, as hen harriers are a Schedule 1 protected species, nobody should be anywhere near their nest sites without a disturbance licence anyway, so the likelihood of a landowner or their employees being ‘covertly surveyed’ by a nest camera is pretty implausible, assuming they’re not involved in the crimes being committed at those sites.
I note that the Moorland Association blog appears to have been edited since it first appeared on 8th July – it now includes a ‘note’ (under the sub-header ‘Should I sign oneofthese letters?‘) to clarify the police’s position that what they are asking for does not amount to covert surveillance. That’s an interesting edit. I wonder if it’s been added on legal advice to try and soften the Moorland Association’s accusations against the police? I imagine the police’s reaction to the Moorland Association’s original blog would not be favourable, given that it’s not conducive to partnership working and also seems to be verging on defamation.
The wider context of this Moorland Association blog is of most interest to me. Here is an organisation that repeatedly claims to have a ‘zero tolerance’ policy against raptor persecution, and yet here it is giving a pretty good impression of an organisation intent on sabotaging the police’s attempts to tackle raptor persecution (as well as other Serious Organised Crime) on grouse moors.
If I was a landowner, and armed criminals were repeatedly coming on to my estate to kill protected wildlife, I’d be on the phone to the police without hesitation, asking them to respond. Not just for the sake of the wildlife but for the safety of my family, my employees, my neighbours and the visiting public. I’d be asking for an armed response unit and would give them permission to do whatever they thought necessary, for however long it took to catch the gunmen. Wouldn’t this be the response of any reasonable, law-abiding citizen who had nothing to hide?
It’ll be fascinating to see what the police’s response is to the Moorland Association’s blog, assuming they’ve seen it. From the presentations I’ve heard from DI Mark Harrison, the officer from the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU) leading the National Hen Harrier Taskforce, he’s playing strictly by the rules, being transparent, and initially taking a softly, softly approach with landowners, refusing to embarrass estates by naming them publicly as hen harrier persecution hotspots because he wants to work in partnership with them.
Hen Harrier Taskforce approach, presented by DI Harrison at a recent seminar. Photo: Ruth Tingay
I’ve been cynical of his ‘partnership’ approach and have suggested that all he’s doing is shielding the criminals. However, DI Harrison has been very clear that his tactics are part of a longer-term strategy and that if landowners refuse to cooperate, it makes it easier for him to take the next step and upgrade the tactics to something far more serious.
The Taskforce isn’t just looking at wildlife crime. It is also intent on tackling offences such as theft (of satellite tags), criminal damage (of satellite tags), fraud offences, criminal use of firearms, and potential conspiracy offences relating to encouraging or assisting crime. Some of these are very serious offences, triable either way (i.e. can be heard in a higher court that has greater sentencing powers than a magistrates court) and thus there are more serious consequences for anyone convicted of these offences than being convicted for a wildlife crime offence.
The tactics that he’ll be empowered to use are far more intrusive than anything these grouse moor estates will have faced before, he won’t need their permission to deploy them and they won’t know what’s happening until it’s too late.
Let’s see if the Moorland Association’s inflammatory blog will trigger a response from DI Harrison and the NWCU, resulting in the Taskforce ramping up its tactics on any grouse shooting estates where a landowner refuses to sign up.
UPDATE 23 July 2024: Moorland Association booted off the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group (RPPDG) here
UPDATE 22 November 2024: Revealed: letter of expulsion to Andrew Gilruth (CEO, Moorland Association) from Head of National Wildlife Crime Unit (here)
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.
Press release from Police Scotland (28 June 2024):
APPEAL FOR INFORMATION AFTER GOSHAWK NEST FOUND ABANDONED NEAR LOCH GYNACK
Police are appealing for information after a suspected attempt to target birds of prey in the Strathspey area.
On Saturday, 8 June, 2024, officers received a report of an active Goshawk nest having been found abandoned in suspicious circumstances, within a forest near Loch Gynack.
Enquiries were carried out at the site, in partnership with RSPB Scotland, showing the nest had been deliberately targeted with a shotgun. The nest and damaged branches were taken for x-ray with the assistance of staff at the Kincraig Highland Wildlife Park.
Police Constable Daniel Sutherland, Highland and Islands Wildlife Crime Liaison officer, said: “All birds of prey are fully protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and it is illegal to kill them. I am asking anyone in the local community who may be able to help with our enquiries to come forward.
“The area is close to popular walking paths from Newton More. If you were walking in the area during May or early June, and may have seen or heard anything suspicious, then please get in touch.”
Anyone with information is asked to contact Police Scotland on 101, quoting reference CR/0211821/24, or make a call anonymously to the charity Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.
ENDS
UPDATE 24 October 2025: BBC’s Highland Cops programme features investigation into shot out Goshawk nest in Cairngorms National Park (here)
Raptor Persecution UK 