Tag: trap

Public consultation on increased powers for SSPCA investigators finally launched

sspca_badgeThe Scottish Government has finally launched its public consultation on increasing the powers of the SSPCA to investigate a wider suite of wildlife crimes.

We have campaigned long and hard for this and it’s taken the Government three years since they first committed to opening a consultation, so now it’s vitally important that as many people as possible actually respond to it. The Government wants to hear your views, whether in support or opposition, so this is your chance to influence policy and make a real difference in the fight against wildlife crime in Scotland.

The consultation document itself is extremely well-written, and we are delighted to see that the consultation period will be open for five months (closing 1st September 2014). We are also pleased to see that the consultation questions are straightforward:

1. Do you agree that the law in Scotland should be changed to give the SSPCA the powers as set out in section 4.1 [of the consultation document]?

2. Please set out your reasons for your answer to Q1.

3. If you would prefer to see changes to the SSPCA’s powers to investigate wildife crime other than those set out in section 4.1, please describe them.

So what’s it all about? The finer details can be read in the consultation document (see below) but in a nutshell….

Currently, the SSPCA has the power to investigate wildlife crimes that involve an animal in distress. So for example, if they are called out to an incident of a golden eagle that had been caught in an illegally-set spring trap and the eagle was still alive, the SSPCA has the power to collect evidence as part of a criminal investigation. This is because they have powers under the animal welfare legislation and this incident would certainly fall into a welfare category where the animal was ‘under the control of man’.

However, if they are called out to an incident where a golden eagle had eaten a poisoned bait and had died two minutes before the SSPCA arrived on scene, the SSPCA does not currently have the power to investigate because the welfare legislation doesn’t apply (the bird is already dead) and the dead bird is not ‘under the control of man’. In this scenario, all the SSPCA can do is to call the police and hope that the police attend the scene in a timely manner. How stupid is that?

Another example – if the SSPCA was called out to an incident of an illegally-snared badger, and that badger was already dead, and the SSPCA found 100 illegally-set snares at the same location, the SSPCA would not be able to investigate; they would have to rely upon the police to attend. If the badger was still alive (suffering), the SSPCA could investigate.

The proposal laid out in the consultation is to widen the investigatory powers of the SSPCA so that they’re not just limited to operating under welfare legislation; the increased powers, if granted, would also allow them to operate under certain parts of the Wildlife & Countryside Act in addition to the welfare legislation.

Importantly, the increased powers would  allow them to continue their investigations into animal welfare incidents where an animal is in distress, but also to investigate wildlife crimes where the animal is already dead, and even wildlife crimes that haven’t yet involved an animal – for example an illegally-set trap.

For us, the increased investigatory powers are a no-brainer. If you care about wildlife crime and you want to see improved detection rates, more prosecutions and a greater chance of conviction, then these increased investigatory powers are a logical step. Here’s why:

1. The SSPCA has a successful track record for investigating [a limited number of] wildlife crimes, both on their own and in partnership with the police.

2. Their inspectors and specialist investigations team have long experience in this field and are already fully trained.

3. SSPCA inspectors are fully focused on animal welfare and wildlife crime – they are not part-timers like many of the police WCOs and nor are they distracted by having to investigate other types of crime, as police WCOs can be.

4. The SSPCA is already a Specialist Reporting Agency, which means they can report alleged offences [within their limited remit] to the Procurator Fiscal and they know what evidence is required for a potential prosecution.

5. With increased investigatory powers, a total of 64 experienced SSPCA staff would be available to respond to a wider range of wildlife crimes.

6. These 64 experienced SSPCA staff would come at no cost whatsoever to the public purse. It would be a free resource to bolster an often under-resourced police force.

7. The specialist skills of the SSPCA are already recognised and utilised by the police in multi-agency searches. The sticking point, under current legislation, is that the police are not obliged to invite them to participate on such searches. Sometimes they do, sometimes, inexplicably, they don’t; it all depends on the personalities involved, which is not, in our opinion, the best way of investigating a wildlife crime.

8. The increase of powers to the SSPCA would not mean that the police are excluded from such investigations. The police would still retain their powers but crucially, they’d now have a further resource to call upon if they needed help. Alternatively, the SSPCA would have the powers to conduct their own investigation if the police couldn’t attend at short notice, for whatever reason. That would be true partnership working and, most importantly of all, increase the chances of a thorough investigation leading to a successful prosecution.

9. Last year we calculated the conviction rate for raptor persecution crime in Scotland as being a pathetic 7.3% (see here). Obviously, something is not working and by giving increased powers to the SSPCA we would expect to see this conviction rate rise considerably. Surely that’s in everyone’s interest (apart from the wildlife criminals, of course).

We know that there will probably be a lot of opposition to the proposal. For example, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association were not in support when the issue was first raised during the WANE bill consultations several years ago. We’re fairly sure that others from within the game-shooting industry will also oppose it – you’ll have to draw your own conclusions on their motivation for opposition. It’ll certainly be interesting to see the consultation responses of various organisations when they are published after the close of the consultation period.

At a time when there is an increasing public awareness of wildlife crime, and an ever-growing sense of frustration at the endless series of failed investigations (with a handful of exceptions), this consultation couldn’t have come at a better time.

Please, have a look at the consultation document and send in your views to the government using the official response form (see below). If you want to copy and paste any or all of our reasons listed above for increasing the SSPCA’s investigatory powers, please feel free.

The time is long-overdue for the pressure to be ramped up on the wildlife criminals (the Untouchables) running amok in our countryside, illegally poisoning, shooting, trapping and bludgeoning our wildlife and sticking up two fingers to the rest of us. Let them know we’ve had enough and let the government know that they have our full support to implement these changes.

Download the SSPCA Consultation document: SSPCA Consulation document

Download the Consultation and Response Form: SSPCA Consultation Questions and Response Form

Raptor poisoning incidents doubled in 2013

The Partnership for Action against Wildlife Crime (PAW Scotland) has published the latest ‘official’ maps showing the distribution of reported raptor persecution incidents in Scotland during 2013.

Remember 2013? That was the government’s much heralded Year of Natural Scotland.

How disgraceful then, to see that reported incidents of raptor poisoning in 2013 doubled from the previous year. The victims this time around included a golden eagle, a red kite and four buzzards. And these were just the ones that were discovered – how many went undiscovered?

Not only did the reported poisoning incidents double, but other methods of illegal persecution were also reported, including disturbance, nest destruction, shooting and trapping, and these incidents numbered nearly three times the number of reported poisoning incidents.

It is clear, once again, that despite all the claims to the contrary, the illegal persecution of birds of prey in Scotland is still taking place with impunity. This has been vividly illustrated by the unfolding news from Ross-shire this week that at least 11 raptors have been found dead, including at least 8 red kites, all strongly suspected to be the victims of illegal poisoning. We fully expect this figure to rise…

This year, for the first time, the maps are now not just restricted to showing reported poisoning incidents; also included are the other types of persecution. This approach has to be applauded, especially as there is a real concern that the raptor killers are changing tactics in an attempt to show that the game-shooting industry is cleaning up its act (i.e. if they can keep poisoning figures low, they can point to this as an indication that persecution is dropping because they know that poisoning is the only method that is regularly mapped and monitored). Not any more, so well done to the Environment Minister for ensuring the other methods are also now ‘officially’ mapped and monitored.

However, the new and improved maps are still not showing the full picture.

For example, the recorded incidents shown on the new maps are limited to those where a dead or dying raptor has also been discovered:

The maps DO NOT show incidents where other birds/animals have been found poisoned with banned substances that have been categorised by SASA as ‘abuse’. Why not?

The maps DO NOT show incidents where an illegally-set trap has been found without an injured or dead raptor in/on it. Why not?

The maps DO NOT show the locations where satellite-tracked raptors have ‘mysteriously disappeared’ without trace. Why not?

But most significantly of all, the maps DO NOT show incidents where poisoned baits have been discovered, and have been categorised by SASA as ‘abuse’, unless a poisoned raptor was also found at the scene. Why not?

In our view, this is the most serious of all the omissions. The Scottish Government explains this away by saying that if there isn’t a dead/dying raptor at the scene then the discovery of poisoned baits can’t be classified as ‘raptor persecution’. Eh? Everybody knows that these poisons are routinely used to target birds of prey. To deliberately leave them off these poisoning maps is astonishing. In whose interest is it to exclude these incidents?

A good example of this sort of incident came last year when a massive stash of pre-prepared poisoned baits was found inside two game bags in woodland next to a grouse moor on Leadhills estate. Leadhills has a long and sorry history of poisoned baits and poisoned raptors having been found there, dating back several decades. A Leadhills gamekeeper was convicted in 2010 for er, laying out a poisoned bait on the moor. There were 36 baits in total in the 2013 stash; chopped up into bite-size pieces and sprinkled with Carbofuran. What on earth does the Government think those baits were going to be used for if not for poisoning raptors?

We think this particular stash of pre-prepared poisoned baits is the largest ever discovered in Scotland. The Leadhills baits are not included in the latest maps. Why? Because no poisoned raptors were found at the scene. Probably because the police failed to conduct any level of search when they turned up, in marked vehicles, to collect the baits.

If we, the BBC and Project Raptor had not reported on that incident, nobody would be any the wiser to it today. The police failed to issue a press release and now we find that the incident has been excluded from the ‘official’ poisoning maps. There’s now no doubt at all that the incident will also be excluded from the Scottish Government’s ‘official’ raptor persecution report that they’ll publish later this year.

‘Discovery of a massive stash of poisoned baits on a sporting estate? Where? When? Nope, we can’t find it in the ‘official’ statistics, you must be mistaken, it can’t have happened’.

Compare this approach with that used by the government/police to report on drug seizures. They regularly report on the recovery of big stashes of heroin, whether the heroin has actually found its way onto the street or not. They don’t say, ‘Oh, we can’t include that in our official stats because we didn’t find a junkie laying next to the stash”, do they? No, it all gets recorded as part of their official drug crimes statistics. What’s so different about the discovery of big stashes of banned poisons that are known to be used to illegally target birds of prey?

So, all in all then, situation normal in Scotland. Reported poisoning incidents have doubled from the previous year, other methods of killing raptors are being utilised with disturbing regularity, the game-shooting industry is still trying to spin the story into something positive (Doug McAdam is quoted in the Scotsman article as saying: ‘Good progress has been made on reducing illegal poisoning incidents’!!), the Scottish Government is still trying to spin the story into something positive (by comparing the 2013 figures with  figures from 2009 [the highest reported poisoning figures in 20 years] rather than focusing on the doubling of reported incidents from 2012 to 2013) and the ‘official’ statistics are still not showing the full scale of the problem.

See you all same place, same time, next year, when, judging by the recent Ross-shire news, once again we’ll be reporting that raptor poisoning incidents have increased over the last year. The only surprise will be by how much.

To view the ‘official’ maps on the PAW Scotland website see here.

Article in the Scotsman ‘Birds of prey spared poison – to be stamped to death’ – see here.

Article on BBC website ‘Number of birds of prey poisoned in Scotland doubles’ – see here.

Article on STV news ‘Rise in number of birds of prey illegally poisoned ‘very worrying” – see here.

Verdict against Scottish gamekeeper James Marsh: ‘not proven’

The eight-day trial of Scottish gamekeeper James Marsh ended at Stirling Sheriff Court last week with a verdict of ‘not proven’.

The case centred on the discovery of a Larsen trap on the Duntreath Estate on 1st April 2012. The trap, found by a walker, was situated underneath a crag and contained a Jay (in the trap’s decoy compartment) and a Tawny Owl (within the catching compartment). The Tawny Owl was reportedly close to death. The trap had an identification tag which was registered to Duntreath Estate and the walker alerted the SSPCA to the trap. It was suspected that gamekeeper Marsh was using the Jay as a lure to trap birds of prey. It is not permitted under general licence to use a Jay as a decoy within a Larsen trap. [As a point of interest, since January 1st 2014 it is now no longer permitted in Scotland to use a Jay as a decoy inside a crow cage trap either, so if you see one, you should report it immediately].

Marsh, 49, of Middle Ballewan near Blanefield, Stirling, was reported to the Procurator Fiscal by the SSPCA for a number of alleged offences including:

1. Section 5(1)(b) of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Use of an unlawful trap);

2. Section 19 2(a)(b) Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (Causing suffering to a Tawny Owl and a Jay);

3. Section 24 3(a)(b)(c)(e) Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 (Failure to ensure the welfare of a Tawny Owl and Jay);

4. Section 1(1)(a) of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Unlawfully taking a Tawny Owl);

5. Section 1(1)(a) of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Unlawfully taking a Jay);

6. Section 1(2)(a) of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Unlawfully possessing a Tawny Owl);

7. Section 1(2)(a) of The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Unlawfully possessing a Jay).

In defence, Marsh admitted to having set the trap [lawfully] some weeks prior to its discovery in order to catch a Carrion Crow which he intended to use as a decoy. He argued that the trap had been moved up hill and reset in the location where it was found and despite searching he had been unable to find it. He claimed the Jay may have squeezed into the trap decoy compartment by itself and attracted the Tawny Owl which had become trapped. He was unable to explain why the Jay, having squeezed into the trap, would not have been able to get back out.

The verdict of ‘not proven’ is an interesting one. In Scottish law, there are three possible outcomes to a criminal trial. These are ‘Guilty’ [a conviction], ‘Not Guilty’ [an acquittal] and ‘Not Proven’ [an aquittal]. Wikipedia offers an explanation for the use of ‘not proven’:

“The modern perception of the ‘not proven’ verdict is an acquittal when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the accused person’s innocence to bring in a ‘not guilty’ verdict. Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary. In popular parlance, this verdict is sometimes jokingly referred to as ‘not guilty and don’t do it again’.

Out of the country, the ‘not proven’ verdict may be referred to as the ‘Scottish verdict’, and in Scotland itself it may be referred to colloquially as the ‘bastard verdict’, which was a term coined by Sir Walter Scott, who was sheriff in the court of Selkirk“.

Despite the ‘not proven’ verdict, well done to the SSPCA for taking on the case. It is widely recognised that this type of investigation requires specialist knowledge, especially with the continuing difficulties of proving who has set a trap (or laid out a poisoned bait, chopped down a nest tree, stamped on eggs or young birds, shot a bird etc etc) and the SSPCA and the Fiscal did well to bring this case to court.

The Tawny Owl survived and was eventually released following extensive veterinary care.

For previous blogs on this case see here and here

Shooting Times publishes astonishing denials about eagle persecution on grouse moors

Eagle eyed keepers shooting times March 2014Talking of very, very stupid people….

An article has appeared in the latest edition of the Shooting Times & Countryside Magazine that once again repeats the ludicrous notion that gamekeepers on Scottish grouse moors are a force for good as far as eagle conservation goes, and suggests that accusations to the contrary are ‘unfair’.

We’ve provided a PDF of the article here: Eagle-eyed keepers Shooting Times March 2014

Really? How many times do we have to go over this? The evidence is there for all to see. These continuous denials just serve to further entrench positions and frankly make a laughing stock of those pumping out this clearly inaccurate guff.

So, let’s lay out the facts once again for the benefit of those new to the issue.

Scotland’s golden eagle population is not ‘stable’. On a superficial level it appears to be stable, but the overall population figure (estimated at ~430 pairs, give or take a few) masks some very big differences in regional abundance. For example, there has been a substantial increase of golden eagles in the Western Isles over the last ~20 years, largely thanks to a reduction in illegal persecution in that region. In contrast, there has been a significant decrease in the number of golden eagles in the central, eastern and southern uplands (hence all those vacant territories), thanks largely to illegal persecution on driven grouse moors. That is a fact, backed up by a suite of scientific peer-reviewed studies. That’s why the population appears to be ‘stable’ – because all the losses in the east are being counterbalanced by the gains in the west. We’ve blogged about this in greater detail here.

posioned GE Lethnot 2013The golden eagle in Scotland does face a variety of threats or potential threats, including afforestation and the construction of wind farms. We don’t dispute that. However, the main scientific report on this issue has shown that the single biggest threat to golden eagles in Scotland is illegal persecution on driven grouse moors. That is a fact, backed up by scientific peer-reviewed evidence (see link above).

The article says: “Unfortunately, even in recent times, a handful of Scottish golden eagles have been found dead as a result of poisoning“. What the article fails to say is that the majority of those poisoned birds have been found on driven grouse moors. And not only poisoned, but shot and trapped as well. In addition, plenty of satellite-tagged golden eagles have ‘disappeared’ – unsurprisingly their last signals emitted from driven grouse moors. Oh, and it’s more than ‘a handful’. Our latest count is 31 eagles in 7 years, either illegally persecuted or mysteriously ‘disappeared’, with the majority of them on driven grouse moors (see here). And those are only the birds we know about because the majority of them were wearing satellite tags. How many more are being killed that we don’t know about? Plenty more if you look at the population figures and the rather telling ‘gaps’ in distribution.

The article says it is “unfortunate and unfair” to blame sporting estates when these illegally-killed eagles are discovered on, er, grouse moors. It is neither unfortunate nor unfair. The blame is fairly and squarely put at the feet of those involved with grouse moor management based on decades of scientific evidence. The link between driven grouse moors and raptor persecution (not just of eagles but of several raptor species) has been clearly established as this suite of scientific papers demonstrates (see here for a recent blog on this).

The article cites the SGA’s recent claims of ’55 active eagle nests on keepered grouse moors in eastern and central Scotland’ as evidence that golden eagles are doing just fine on driven grouse moors. We blogged about that claim here. We also blogged about the Scottish Raptor Study Group’s research into that claim (see here). Here’s part of what we wrote:

“According to the SGA, there are ‘at least 55 active golden eagle nests’ in these ‘keepered grouse areas’; the SRSG is saying that there are 52 ‘active nests’ in the area, and of those 52, only 8 are on driven grouse moors. Crucially, the SRSG also includes information about the vacant golden eagle territories in the area – information that the SGA conveniently ‘forgot’ to include. According to the SRSG, there are an additional 57 ‘non-active’ golden eagle nests in this area, and 31 of them (54%) happen to be on driven grouse moors.

Hmm. The picture doesn’t look quite so rosy now, does it?”

GE conservation status 2003The article goes on: “It is interesting to note that eagle numbers are highest in eastern Scotland, where grouse moors are actively managed“. Er, no, they’re not. Try looking at the scientific data (see here especially) and pay particular attention to territory occupancy rates:

Western Isles = 91%

Western Highlands = 89.5%

Argyll West & Islands = 81.5%

Central Highlands = 48%

Cairngorms Massif = 42.4%

North East Glens = 17.6%

Also pay particular attention to the map which shows the species’ conservation status across Scotland. You’ll find that the golden eagle only has favourable conservation status (green colour on the map) in three of sixteen regions, and those three regions are nowhere near the driven grouse moors of the eastern and central uplands.

This incredible article finishes with this: “The fact remains, however, that far from being the purveyor of poison and pole traps – so often portrayed in the popular press – the 21st century moorland keeper is probably the golden eagle’s staunchest ally“. Aye, right.

You carry on chucking out this fantastical image of the raptor-friendly moorland keeper and we’ll keep publishing the facts which show that the majority of them are anything but.

Case against gamekeeper George Mutch: part 6

Criminal proceedings continued today with an intermediate diet in the case against gamekeeper George Mutch of Kildrummy Estate, Aberdeenshire.

This was the sixth hearing in this case.

Mutch is pleading not guilty to a suite of charges for offences alleged to have taken place in August 2012. The charges come under Section 5 subsection 1B of the Wildlife & Countryside Act (relating to the use of a trap for the purpose of taking or killing wild birds) and Section 1 subsection 1A of the WCA (relating to the killing, injuring or taking of wild birds).

The case is expected to go to trial in late May, although another intermediate diet is scheduled for 2nd April.

We’re particularly interested in this case and we’ll be closely following the proceedings.

Previous blogs here, here, here, here and here.

SGA donor owns estate ‘among the worst in Scotland for wildlife crime’

SGA donors 2014 EdradynateThe Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association publishes a quarterly magazine for its members. The latest edition (winter/spring 2014) includes a list of recent donors. We were intrigued to see the following entry:

MDCC Campbell Edradynate Estate (Donation: £1720)

Could this be Michael David Colin Craven Campbell, who resides in Hampshire but owns Edradynate Estate? So why would this entry be intriguing? Why wouldn’t they accept funding from Mr Campbell, who was awarded an MBE in 2008 for services to charity, was appointed by the Queen to become High Sheriff of Hampshire 2008-2009 and has an entry in Debretts? No reason whatsoever to reject a generous donation from such an upstanding and distinguished gentleman whose Debrett’s entry lists ‘shooting’ and ‘escaping to Scotland’ amongst his recreational activities. Right?

Edradynate Estate near Aberfeldy in Perthshire was described in 2004 by the then RSPB Investigations Officer Dave Dick as being “among the worst in Scotland for wildlife crime” (see here).

In January 2005, the then Police Wildlife Crime officer for Tayside Police, Alan Stewart, described Edradynate Estate as follows:

“Edradynate Estate, which is owned by an absentee landlord from Hampshire, has probably the worst record in Scotland for poisoning incidents, going back more than a decade. In 14 separate incidents since 1998, 16 poisoned victims (9 buzzards, 1 cat, 1 tawny owl, 2 sparrowhawks, 1 common gull, 1 polecat and 1 carrion crow) and 12 poisoned baits (rabbits, wood pigeons and a pheasant) have been found, with traces of the pesticides Mevinphos, Carbofuran and Alphachloralose” (see here, page 3).

These two prominent wildlife crime investigators were commenting following the collapse of a case against two gamekeepers from Edradynate Estate. In 2002, the Head gamekeeper and an under keeper had been charged with nine offences relating to the alleged use of poisoned baits and bird cruelty, including the use of spring traps. These charges followed a police raid on Edradynate Estate where three rabbit baits, a dead buzzard and a dead crow had been found. Lab tests detected Carbofuran and Alphachloralose. A game bag and a knife seized during the search showed traces of these poisons when swabbed.

On 22 July 2004, two years after the original arrests and 13 court hearings later, the Fiscal dropped the case following a series of adjournments called by both the defence and the prosecution. A Crown Office spokeswoman admitted that the time taken to prepare the case for trial had been a major factor in the decision to drop the case.

The 2002 raid was the second police search on Edradynate Estate. In Alan Stewart’s book, Wildlife Detective, he writes the following:

“This would be our second major search of the estate under warrant and we hoped this time to find sufficient evidence to bring to an end the catalogue of poisoned baits and victims that had turned up on the estate with the worst record by far not just in Tayside but in Scotland”.

The crimes didn’t end there.

a dead red kiteIn July 2010 a poisoned red kite was discovered in the area (see here). According to Tayside Police, ‘five buzzards and a tawny owl met with the same fate in the same area in the last year’.

In September 2010, an un-named gamekeeper from Edradynate Estate, a self-proclaimed member of the SGA, talked to the Courier about the discovery of the poisoned red kite:

“As a member of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association, I am against anything illegal. Anybody who does this should be jailed because it’s not on and I have never done anything like this in my life. To find a poisoned bird on my ground is just wrong because I don’t use poison and wouldn’t know how to.

There is something funny about this and I think someone else has killed this bird and planted it on my estate. Why they have done that, I don’t know. We have never seen a red kite, living or dead, in the Strathtay valley so I don’t know where this has come from. The laird is so upset about it, as am I, because it besmirches our reputation and it’s reflecting badly on me.

I am a professional person and I have worked hard for all these years on the estate and never had anything against my name. This is causing me a lot of stress and strain because I don’t know what is going to happen next. I’ve never been involved in anything like this before.

It’s very reassuring to know that I have the full support of the laird because this job is something I love doing.” (see here).

In March 2011 two poisoned buzzards and two poisoned crows were discovered, along with two poisoned pheasant baits. Carbofuran was detected this time. Tayside Police conducted another search (their third on this estate?) and it was reported that a 62 year old man was taken in for questioning but was released pending further enquiries (see here). We’re not aware of any other media statements about this incident.

In September 2013, the Crown deserted a case against Edradynate Estate’s Head gamekeeper on alleged firearms and explosives charges. The reason for this desertion was not made public (see here).

Nobody has ever been convicted for any of the alleged offences on Edradynate Estate.

Alan Stewart wrote about a 1995 incident on Edradynate Estate in his Wildlife Detective book, concerning the discovery of a poisoned cat belonging to the occupier of a cottage on Edradynate Estate. A search in a nearby wood had recovered a poisoned pheasant bait and a poisoned tawny owl – later all found to contain traces of Mevinphos. A further search had recovered two wood pigeon baits and a poisoned sparrowhawk, all found inside a pheasant pen. They all contained traces of Mevinphos. Stewart wrote:

“I visited a number of residents on the estate and was absolutely shocked at what I learned. According to the interviews I carried out, my suspect had, at various times, set up a gun with a string attached to the trigger to pepper with wheat any intruder who brushed against the string. He had allegedly driven into Perth to the workplace of a person who lived on the estate, to remonstrate with him after a pheasant had been knocked down and killed by the person’s car. He had allegedly poisoned a tenant farmer’s collie, and also shot dead the dog of a visitor to a neighbouring estate after the dog had run off and was being pursued by its owner. I was taken aback by the vitriol these people had for my suspect but their hatred was tempered with fear and all interviews were ‘strictly off the record’. All those I spoke to were in tied houses and none wanted to become involved in a prosecution. News of my investigation had travelled fast and out of the blue I received a telephone call from a former factor for the estate. He had anticipated the reluctance of those who could potentially help, wished me the best of luck, but doubted that my enquiry would ever result in court proceedings”.

A prosecution in this case was attempted but the case was deserted after it became time-barred due to a lack of available evidence to link the individual suspect to the alleged offences.

Alan Stewart wrote:

“The following week [just after the case had been deserted] I learned that another employee had borrowed the suspect’s Land Rover but it had broken down. In his search for tools to repair it, he had lifted up the passenger seat to search the compartment underneath as the most likely place for tools to be stored. Instead of tools there were three dead sparrowhawks. I am sure this would have clinched the case but naturally the employee wanted to keep his job and his house and the information came to me via a third party”.

Stewart wrote about another incident in 2001 – the discovery of a poisoned buzzard on the estate that had been killed by Carbofuran:

“The usual enquiries were made and the usual suspect interviewed, but his involvement could not be established……..In the investigations on Edradynate Estate, we could prove beyond reasonable doubt that baits and dead birds and animals were being found with monotonous regularity on the estate. We could prove beyond reasonable doubt that the baits were laced with particular pesticides and that the victims had been poisoned after having consumed part of these baits. What we were so far unable to prove was who set the baits”.

Case against Lloyd Webber’s gamekeeper moves to trial

The case against a gamekeeper employed on Andrew Lloyd Webber’s estate in Hampshire has moved to trial.

Mark Stevens, 42, is accused of a series of trapping offences alleged to have taken place on the Sydmonton Court Estate, Hampshire, in August and September last year. He has denied the charges.

His trial will take place in July 2014.

See here for previous blog.

SGA Chairman claims he was “stitched up” by Channel 4 News

Mod Game coverbRemember last month when Channel 4 News did a piece on raptor persecution on grouse moors in Scotland? The one where SGA Chairman Alex Hogg was asked whether gamekeepers were poisoning, shooting and trapping birds of prey and he replied:

“No they aren’t. We would dispute that“.

Yes, THAT programme (see here and here for previous blogs).

Well according to the monthly game keeping rag Modern Gamekeeping, Hogg reckons Channel 4 News stitched him up.

According to the article, Hogg said that during a one-hour interview he was asked the question of whether gamekeepers were killing raptors at least half a dozen times. “By the time the interviewer asked it the last time, I was so annoyed I just said ‘No’ and didn’t give a reason“.

Sounds like he stitched himself up, telling a blatant lie that he must have known was going to be challenged with irrefutable evidence that gamekeepers have been convicted for illegally killing raptors, including members of his own organisation.

He also complains about being interviewed last (after Ian Thomson of RSPB Scotland, Dominic Dyer of Care for the Wild, and Logan Steele of the Scottish Raptor Study Group), and therefore having to respond to ‘claims’ [aka given facts] made by the other interviewees, and not being allowed to talk about waders [and presumably the unproven, non-evidenced claims that raptors are wiping them out and therefore keepers should be able to cull raptors].

He also says, “There were also a lot of figures used that were not official figures held by the police or the Scottish Government“. Really? The figures used were based on scientific evidence and official court records, accepted by every person and organisation in the country except for those with a vested interest in the grouse-shooting industry.

He goes on to argue that the finished programme was “extreme”, designed to provoke an emotional response from the public, and didn’t fairly represent what he was trying to say. How you can misrepresent, “No they aren’t. We would dispute that” in response to a simple question of whether gamekeepers are persecuting raptors is a mystery. Did he mean to say, ‘Yes, we are illegally killing raptors’?

All the Hogg nonsense aside, there is a particularly interesting paragraph in the article, presumably written by the rag’s editor. It reads:

“Presenter Cordelia Lynch then quoted RSPB figures to claim that hen harriers were ‘close to extinction’ on the grounds that none had bred last year in England – ignoring the fact that the bird is categorised as ‘Least Concern’ worldwide with a global population of more than 1,300,000 and its major threat is stated to be ‘habitat loss’. It is also said to be ‘highly vulnerable to the impacts of potential wind energy developments’ (source: BTO)“.

Now, this claim of the species being classified as ‘Least Concern’ is often trotted out by those trying to downplay the seriousness of the species’ conservation status in the UK. It is an accurate statement in as much as this is what is written on the species’ IUCN Red List entry (from where the quote is taken), with the addition of one important statement conveniently left out by the Modern Gamekeeping editor – under the heading ‘Major Threats’:

“Persecution is an important threat locally, notably on game preserves in Scotland (del Hoyo et al. 1994)”.

The species’ IUCN listing is fine to use if you want to stick to a species’ global conservation status and ignore its European and UK conservation status. If you look at the IUCN global status for the three wader species that Hogg and friends are up in arms about, their listings also give little cause for concern:

Lapwing – listed as Least Concern. Estimated population c. 5,200,000-10,000,000 individuals. Major threats include land use intensification, pollution and hunting. [Note, no mention of raptors being a major threat].

Curlew – listed as Near Threatened. Estimated population c. 77,000-1,065,000 individuals. Major threats include afforestation, agricultural intensification and hunting. [Note, no mention of raptors being a major threat].

Golden Plover – listed as Least Concern. No population estimate given. Major threats include cultivation and afforestation, severe weather conditions and hunting. [Note, no mention of raptors being a major threat].

So, on the basis of suggesting that the hen harrier’s conservation status is of ‘least concern’ on a global scale [and therefore why all the fuss of losing an entire breeding population in England?], the statement is equally as applicable to those three wader species, right? We shouldn’t be concerned about any of them because on a global scale they’re all doing just fine, right?

Wrong.

Fortunately, government and non-governmental organisations are a lot more clued in and understand the concept, and importance, of national, regional and local biodiversity. Indeed, the Westminster and Scottish Governments have a statutory responsibility for ensuring that national biodiversity targets are met and maintained (although you wouldn’t know it by their continuing failure to address illegal raptor persecution). Rather than use the broad-based IUCN Red List as guidance, they look to more detailed and relevant assessments such as the UK ‘Birds of Conservation Concern’ scientific review (see here). In this document, the hen harrier and lapwing are red listed, and the golden plover and curlew are amber listed.

It’s quite telling, isn’t it, that those with a vested interest in grouse-shooting should continue to not only deny their involvement in the catastrophic loss of an entire breeding population (hen harriers in England), but also continue to downplay its conservation significance.

SNH refuses to recommend golden eagle as national bird

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

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

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

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

That written advice has now been submitted.

SNH advice: SNH response to petition 1500 Feb 19 2014

SRSG advice: SRSG response to petition 1500 Feb 23 2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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