Tag: trap

Environment Minister announces ‘further measures’ to tackle raptor persecution

The Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse has today announced what he calls ‘further measures’ to tackle the on-going problem of illegal raptor persecution in Scotland. Here is his statement in full:

“Since I took on responsibility for this portfolio, I have been clear that one of my priorities is to bear down on the illegal persecution of raptors that continues to blight the Scottish countryside and tarnish Scotland’s reputation.  These outdated, barbaric and criminal practices put at risk the conservation status of some of our most magnificent wildlife.  They also harm our reputation as a country which values its environment and wildlife and undermine the growing tourism sector that is built on that reputation.

We have achieved much since 2007. We have a robust legal framework that protects birds of prey and their nests, including the new vicarious liability provisions.  We have dedicated resources in Police Scotland and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS).  We are leading the way in the UK in the development of wildlife crime forensics work, and we continue to work at building a broad-based alliance through the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW Scotland).  

In 2012 we saw a very welcome reduction in poisoning cases.  However a number of recent reports, some of which are in the public domain and some of which are still subject to police enquiries, suggest that there is still a problem with the use of poison as well as cases involving illegal trapping and shooting.  I have decided therefore that the time is right to bring forward some further measures which I hope will deter those involved in illegal activities. 

Wildlife crime, and raptor persecution in particular, often takes place in remote locations or in the dark of night.  By its very surreptitious nature, the likelihood of being seen by a member of the public who can report the matter to the authorities is small.

I have spoken with the Lord Advocate, who maintains a close personal interest in all wildlife crime.  We are both keen to maximise the opportunity for offences to be detected and offenders to be tracked down.

The Lord Advocate has instructed the specialist prosecutors in the Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit to work with Police Scotland to ensure that law enforcement utilises all investigative tools at their disposal in the fight against wildlife crime.

This work will take place within the National Wildlife Crime Co-Ordinating Forum – a group attended by police Wildlife Crime Liaison Officers from across Scotland and the police’s full-time Scottish Wildlife Crime Co-Ordinator, as well as senior police officers, the National Wildlife Crime Unit, Scottish Government officials and the specialist prosecutors from the Wildlife and Environment Crime Unit within COPFS.

Secondly, in my capacity as Chair of PAW Scotland, I intend to establish a group to carry out a review and report to me on how wildlife crime is treated within the criminal justice system, including examining whether the penalties available for wildlife crime properly reflect the seriousness of the damage caused to vulnerable wildlife and fragile habitats and ecosystems.  

Thirdly, I will be asking Scottish Natural Heritage in their capacity as the authority for licensing decisions under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to examine how and in what circumstances they can restrict the use of General Licences to trap and shoot wild birds on land where they have good reason to believe that crimes against wild birds have taken place.  These General Licences allow the holders to carry out actions that would otherwise be unlawful if undertaken, without any reference to SNH.  We regard the use of General Licences as a privilege that should not be extended in circumstances where there is evidence that their use may be facilitating illegal activities. 

In putting together these measures I have sought to focus only on those individuals and businesses where there are very good reasons to believe they are involved in illegal practices.  I am very keen to avoid anything that places an unfair burden on the majority of shooting businesses that are law-abiding and responsible members of the rural community.  I should also say that I think it is important that wildlife crime is treated in exactly the same way as other types of crime. This means information about cases should be handled in the same way as in other types of crime and that the police and prosecutors are allowed the time and space to carry out whatever investigations they believe to be necessary according to their own professional judgement. We should not descend into allowing trial by leak and accusation. There is a responsibility on us all to avoid that. 

In conclusion I wish to reiterate that eradicating raptor persecution in Scotland remains a high priority for the Scottish Government.  It is not however the sole responsibility of the Scottish Government.  Law enforcement clearly has a key role to play and I am confident that we are ratcheting up the pressure on those committing acts of illegal persecution. However,  everyone involved in the Scottish countryside, and in particular those involved with shooting, should make abundantly clear their disapproval to the minority whose actions are tarnishing the reputation of Scotland’s country sports”.

So, this is the much anticipated ‘action’ against illegal raptor persecution that’s been promised since last autumn when Paul Wheelhouse was appointed. Whilst we welcome his willingness to engage with the issue (in stark comparison to his English counterpart who won’t even admit there’s a problem), we see these latest measures as tiny baby steps in the right direction, and not the decisive hefty stamp that could have been delivered.

The first four paragraphs of his statement are just introductory comments with the usual rhetoric, such as, “We have achieved much since 2007”. Actually, we haven’t. Raptors are still being illegally killed on land managed for game-shooting and more often than not the criminal(s) involved are not being prosecuted. In the few instances where they are prosecuted, there is evidence of extensive plea-bargaining resulting in convictions only for the minor offences, not for the major crimes.

“In 2012 we saw a very welcome reduction in poisoning cases”. No, we didn’t. What we saw was a reduction in the number of reported poisoning cases; that’s a very important distinction. Members of the game-shooting industry (and government, it seems) have made much of this claim, using it as an example of how the industry is cleaning up its act. They won’t be able to make the claim for much longer – we understand that there have been several poisoning incidents already in 2013 and we’re only half-way through the year. Naturally, once again the public haven’t (yet) been informed about these poisonings even though they took place several months ago. We’ll come back to this issue.

The first ‘new’ measure that Wheelhouse is introducing is this:“The Lord Advocate has instructed the specialist prosecutors in the Wildlife and Environmental Crime Unit to work with Police Scotland to ensure that law enforcement utilises all investigative tools at their disposal in the fight against wildlife crime”.

This is interesting, particularly because it immediately follows this paragraph:

“Wildlife crime, and raptor persecution in particular, often takes place in remote locations or in the dark of night.  By its very surreptitious nature, the likelihood of being seen by a member of the public who can report the matter to the authorities is small”.

Does this mean that prosecutors in Scotland are being told by the Lord Advocate that they should now accept covert video surveillance as admissible evidence? If this is the case then it would be a very welcome step indeed. Covert film footage is routinely accepted as admissible evidence in England, but in Scotland it continues to be blocked by the Crown Office prosecutors. Why? We don’t know – we’ve never heard a satisfactory explanation. If our assumption is correct (and of course it may not be) and covert footage is to be accepted, then Wheelhouse deserves a good deal of credit for this single measure. We’ll be watching this potential development with great interest.

His second measure is to establish (yet another) group within the framework of PAW Scotland, “to carry out a review and report to me on how wildlife crime is treated within the criminal justice system, including examining whether the penalties available for wildlife crime properly reflect the seriousness of the damage caused to vulnerable wildlife and fragile habitats and ecosystems”.  We’re not so impressed with this plan; it seems to be reinventing the wheel. A similar review was carried out in 2008 (Natural Justice 2008) following the poisoning of the last remaining breeding female golden eagle in the Scottish Borders in 2007. That review made many recommendations to improve the efficiency of detecting and prosecuting wildlife crime in Scotland, some of which have since been implemented but many have not. It would perhaps have been a good opportunity for Wheelhouse to critically evaluate the implementation of those recommendations made five years ago, rather than start off the process again from scratch, which just leads to further delays in addressing the actual problem.

The third and final new measure is what we would call a fig-leaf approach to tackling illegal raptor persecution. Wheelhouse says: “I will be asking Scottish Natural Heritage in their capacity as the authority for licensing decisions under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act to examine how and in what circumstances they can restrict the use of General Licences to trap and shoot wild birds on land where they have good reason to believe that crimes against wild birds have taken place.  These General Licences allow the holders to carry out actions that would otherwise be unlawful if undertaken, without any reference to SNH.  We regard the use of General Licences as a privilege that should not be extended in circumstances where there is evidence that their use may be facilitating illegal activities”. 

At a superficial level, a restriction on the use of the General Licence sounds like a positive action. But let’s just think about the practicalities. First of all, Wheelhouse suggests that the General Licence may be restricted where SNH have “good reason to believe that crimes against wild birds have taken place”. That sounds like SNH would require a lower burden of proof to show that crimes against wild birds have taken place than say, for example, a criminal conviction. In real terms, how would that work? What would constitute ‘good reason’? The discovery of a poisoned or shot bird on a particular piece of land? In legal terms that’s not enough evidence for a conviction because the estate in question could legitimately argue (no matter how implausible) that the dead bird had been planted by someone with a grudge against them, or that the bird had been poisoned/shot elsewhere and just happened to fly on to their estate where it finally succumbed to its injuries. We can be certain that if SNH tried to use such evidence as giving them ‘good reason to believe that crimes against wild birds have taken place’ they would face a strong legal challenge by the estate’s lawyers. So then we’re back to the current situation whereby a conviction in a court of law is the only acceptable proof that the crime was committed by someone associated with the estate where the dead bird was found and those convictions are, as we all know, almost as rare as rocking horse shit.

But even if SNH could use a lower burden of proof as reason to believe a crime had been committed, there would still be difficulties. The use of General Licences is barely monitored or enforced due to the high volume of people operating under their terms. By their very nature, a General Licence is not actually issued to an individual – you don’t have to apply to use one and there isn’t even a competency test that you must first pass – it’s an open ‘licence’ that anyone can use to carry out what would otherwise be unlawful activities, such as the killing of so-called ‘pest species’ such as crows. We occasionally see a prosecution for an offence relating to a General Licence, e.g. when the operator of a crow cage trap has failed to meet the licence’s terms and conditions, but these prosecutions are rare and incidental. No statutory authority is regularly monitoring the use of General Licences (e.g. SNH don’t do it, the police don’t do it)  – we don’t even know how many people are operating under the General Licences because the operators are not required to submit annual returns. So, if SNH did ‘restrict the use’ of a General Licence on a particular piece of land, who would be enforcing that restriction? How would we know whether a restriction was in place? Would the location and name of the estate be published? For how long would the restriction be in place? What would be the penalty if an estate was found to be flouting the restriction?

All in all, this proposed new measure has glaring loopholes that in practical terms would be very difficult to close. It’s hugely disappointing that the Minister has taken this route instead of another option that is already available to him in the provisions of the Wildlife & Countryside Act – that is, the ability to enforce a (temporary) ‘closed season’ on the hunting of a particular game bird species in a particular area (or in this case, a specific estate). For example, in exceptional circumstances a Minister can impose a temporary moratorium on shooting specific species during periods of prolonged severe weather. The authority to impose such restrictions is already there in the legislation – it wouldn’t require the lengthy drafting of new legislation – if he wanted to enforce a temporary ban on, say, driven grouse shooting on a particular moor, he could do so. This measure would fit with his approach of only targeting the criminals, not the ‘law-abiding majority’ (his words, not ours) so why isn’t he pursuing it? Just another missed opportunity.

One final point about the Minister’s statement – the bit in his penultimate paragraph where he says this:

“I should also say that I think it is important that wildlife crime is treated in exactly the same way as other types of crime. This means information about cases should be handled in the same way as in other types of crime and that the police and prosecutors are allowed the time and space to carry out whatever investigations they believe to be necessary according to their own professional judgement. We should not descend into allowing trial by leak and accusation. There is a responsibility on us all to avoid that”. 

We whole-heartedly agree that wildlife crime should be treated in exactly the same way as other types of crime. This means that these crimes should be properly publicised in the media, just as other crimes are, and especially when they involve the discovery of potentially-fatal poisons that put the general public at significant risk. We hold very strong opinions on this and are adamant that it is not in the public interest for the police to keep these crimes hidden from view for months on end. Until we see an end to this ridiculous culture of silence we’ll continue to blog about these crimes with a measured, accurate and responsible approach.

We’ll be blogging later this week with some specific questions for Paul Wheelhouse….

Scottish Land & Estate’s response to the announcement here.

RSPB Scotland’s response here.

Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association response here.

BASC Scotland’s response here.

Cryptic press release issued after red kite dies of ‘unnatural causes’

A dead red kiteA press release has gone out this morning appealing for information after a dead red kite was discovered on Royal Deeside. According to the information released (see here), the bird was found in an area of woodland near Aboyne on 6th April 2013. The wing-tagged bird was known to be a three-year-old breeding female, originally from Perthshire, who had successfully raised three offspring in 2012 close to the area where subsequently she was killed.

Bizarrely, the press release does not explain how the kite was killed. Instead it has the following cryptic statement:

“After recovery of the carcass, a post mortem was carried out. This revealed that the bird’s death was not by natural causes”.

So what does that mean then? Was she poisoned? Caught in a leg-hold trap? Shot? Caught in a crow trap and clubbed to death?

We’ve seen this sort of press release before, notably in 2010 when the police force formerly known as Northern Constabulary put out an appeal for information after an osprey died from what was described as ‘deliberately inflicted injuries’ (see here). A few days later it was confirmed that the osprey had been shot (see here).

If this kite’s death was the result of a crime, which we presume it was given that she died of ‘unnatural causes’ and the police are appealing for information, then why the hell aren’t we just told straight? What’s the point of dressing it up to make it sound less serious than it is?

And why, yet again, has there been such a long delay between the discovery of the dead bird and the appeal for information? The bird was found on 6th April – the weekend after the Easter bank holiday – that’s over two and a half months ago. Sure, the police will want to conduct their initial investigations and so there may be an understandable delay of a couple of weeks, but there’s absolutely no operational excuse for a delay of nearly three months before it’s made public.

So here we have yet another example of an illegally-persecuted raptor – yet more evidence that the wildlife criminals are continuing to defy the law, safe in the knowledge that they’re virtually untouchable. Where are the promised ‘new measures’ to tackle raptor persecution from our Environment Minister, Paul Wheelhouse? We expected a statement from him this week but so far, nothing. The Scottish parliamentary recess begins next week (29th June until 1st September) – will we hear from him before then? Email: ministerforenvironment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Some background info about Scottish red kites:

Following their extinction as a breeding bird in Scotland in 1917, a joint RSPB Scotland and Scottish Natural Heritage project was undertaken with the aim of restoring the species to its former range.

Kites were released in four areas of Scotland:

In 1989-1994, 93 birds on the Black Isle;

In 1996-2001, 103 birds in Stirlingshire/Perthshire;

In 2001-05, 104 birds in Dumfries & Galloway;

In 2007-09, 101 birds in Aberdeenshire.

In 2012, there were 214 breeding pairs of red kites in Scotland.

From 1989-2011, a minimum of 75 red kites fell victim to illegal poisoning, with a further seven the victims of illegal shooting, trapping or nest destruction.

UPDATE 13.30hr: It’s been confirmed that this red kite had been shot. Why the bloody hell didn’t they just say that to begin with?

Buzzard euthanised after caught in illegal leg-hold trap

More than nine weeks ago, a buzzard was caught in an illegal leg-hold trap. According to local sources this happened on land part-managed for gamebird shooting in central Scotland. The buzzard’s injuries were such that it had to be euthanised.

Police Scotland have still not informed the public about this incident. Why not?

It happened in March, before the Easter Bank Holiday. They’ve had almost ten weeks to inform the public. In whose interest is it to keep this incident a dirty little secret?

We’ve blogged about this a million times before. They don’t have to give away details that might compromise an investigation – all they need to say is that an illegally trapped buzzard has been discovered, it didn’t survive its injuries, and a police investigation is underway. It’s really that simple. Here’s a recent example:

Police Wildlife Crime Officers in Devon & Cornwall Police blogged on 27th May 2013 that two dead buzzards, found in suspicious circumstances, had been reported to them that day. A couple of days later they provided an update to say the birds had been retrieved and had been sent off for toxicology analysis.

Here’s another example:

On 22nd May 2013, Gwent Police appealed for information after a shot peregrine falcon had to be euthanised. The shooting had been reported to the police only two days previously, on 20th May 2013 (see here).

Here’s another example:

On 6th April 2013, Norfolk Constabulary issued a press statement to say that a man had been arrested on suspicion of a number of wildlife crime offences after the discovery of over a dozen dead birds of prey. He had been arrested just two days earlier on 4th April 2013 (see here). [Incidentally, this man’s bail expired on 22nd May and we’re waiting to hear the latest development in this case].

So you see it’s quite possible for police forces to release information in a timely manner when they want to. It’s not as though the public aren’t interested in buzzard conservation in Scotland – a recent petition urging the Scottish Government not to licence a buzzard cull has now reached over 20,000 signatures in about a week (see here and please sign it if you haven’t already done so).

 We’ll repeat the question posed earlier: in whose interest is it for Police Scotland to remain silent about this illegally-trapped buzzard?

Shot golden eagle finally succumbs to its injuries

The golden eagle that was found shot and critically injured on a grouse moor last autumn has finally succumbed to its injuries. The bird apparently died last week, although as far as we can tell there’s been no publicity, which seems a bit surprising given the public interest in this incident. We understand the Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse was informed.

This eagle was discovered ‘barely alive’ last October, on a grouse moor belonging to Buccleuch Estate, close to the boundary with Leadhills Estate (see here). Its death now completes a grisly trilogy of golden eagle killings in Scotland in 2012: one poisoned, one trapped and one shot. And these are just the ones that were discovered.

It’s highly unlikely anyone will be prosecuted for killing these eagles if past incidents are anything to go by. We’ve been keeping a list of known dead or ‘missing’ eagles and any subsequent prosecutions. At last count it was 26 eagles, 6 years, 0 prosecutions (see here).

It’s now 27 eagles, 7 years, 0 prosecutions.

If you want to express your disgust to the Environment Minister and ask him when he’s going to make good on the promise he made last year to consider further measures to bring the raptor killers to justice, please email him at: ministerforenvironment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

The shot golden eagle ungergoing surgery

Analysis of the SGA’s Deeside eagle report

Last month the SGA released a report into their ‘investigation’ into the death of the Deeside golden eagle (see here to read their report).

At the time we said we would comment on their report once we’d received responses to some pending Freedom of Information requests. We’re now in a position to comment.

So, the motivation for the SGA’s ‘investigation’ into the circumstances of this eagle’s death was because of what they perceived as “irregularities” in the media reports put out by the RSPB. Let’s have a look at those ‘irregularities’ in turn.

May2012 GE tayside grampianThe SGA don’t believe that the eagle was caught in an illegally-set trap because during their discussions with the estate’s staff, it was claimed they only ever use Mark 4 Fenn traps as opposed to Mark 6 Fenn traps (and of course statements made by those involved with grouse moor management should always be believed). The SGA say the Mark 4 Fenn trap is too weak to smash the legs of a golden eagle and it would be impossible for an eagle to get both feet caught inside the trap at the same time. However, if you read the RSPB’s original media statement about this incident (released 24th September 2012 – here) nowhere do they mention a Fenn trap. All they mention is a “spring type trap”, which covers a wide array of different traps, both legal and illegal, that could have caused the injuries sustained by that eagle. Indeed, independent veterinary pathology experts at the Scottish Agricultural College laboratory concluded that the two broken legs sustained by this eagle “could be consistent with an injury caused by a spring type trap”. It’s up to the reader to decide whether the statements made by the estate’s staff and the SGA are more authoritative than those of the independent veterinary pathologist experts at the SAC lab.

The SGA say they visited the precise location of the ‘alleged’ trapping on the estate. They say, “Close by, on one side, was a large multi-catch crow cage. On the other was a 7-8 foot deer fence”. This is an interesting interpretation of what “close by” means. We understand that the deer fence is actually at least 80m away from the location where the bird was static for 15 hours.

The SGA say that the eagle could have broken both its legs by crashing into the fence at a speed that could have been in excess of 50mph (according to their falconer friend). However, the post mortem report clearly states that the eagle’s injuries could be consistent with being caught in a spring type trap, not crashing into a static object at high speed. In the event of crashing into the fence with an estimated speed in excess of 50mph, you might expect injuries to the feet and to the pelvis, as a bare minimum. The post mortem report documented two broken legs as the bird’s only injuries. It’s up to the reader to decide whether the statement of an un-named falconer with an unknown level of ‘expertise’ holds more authority than the statements of the independent veterinary pathologist experts at the SAC lab.

The SGA say that after hitting the fence the eagle “would then have undoubtedly tried to regain flight. This is consistent with the GPS signals which we were shown by the RSPB, which appeared to show variations in the readings. The readings do not show that the bird was “static” for 15 hours”. It seems that the SGA have a limited understanding of how to interpret GPS sat tag signals. The variations in the readings are entirely within the +/- 18m variation quoted by the manufacturer (Microwave Telemetry). In other words, all of the signals received during the 15 hour period in question were within an 18m circle radius. To all intents and purposes the bird was “static”. It’s up to the reader to decide whether the SGA’s interpretation of the satellite data is more authoritative than those of the sat tag manufacturer or the experienced biologists tracking this eagle.

The SGA say, “The RSPB state that the eagle could no longer become airborne. We disagree, having witnessed on several occasions various bird species gaining flight with leg injuries”. But it wasn’t the RSPB who said that the eagle could no longer become airborne, it was the independent veterinary pathologists at the SAC, who said the injuries were so severe “they would prevent the bird from being able to take off”. If anyone has ever watched a golden eagle take off they will know that the bird bends its legs to push off from the ground/perch. Clearly, two broken legs would prevent this from happening. The SGA suggest that the bird could have used the “advantageous slope of the ground” to “get air below its wings”. Actually the area where this bird was static for 15 hours is relatively flat – not on the edge of a high cliff where an injured bird might be able to roll off and find a thermal uplift. So, imagine an eagle with two broken legs on the flat ground – it will be lying on its side, back or front – do you think it could get airborne? It’s up to the reader to decide whether the SGA’s explanation is more plausible than that of the independent veterinary pathologist experts at the SAC lab.

The SGA say that the eagle could have flown 15km in the dark, tried to land but crashed into the tree and fell to its final resting place underneath a tree branch. This crash would, according to them, explain the eagle feathers found between the road lay-by and the dead eagle. Unfortunately the post mortem report doesn’t show any evidence of the eagle having crashed into a dense conifer tree. It’s up to the reader to decide whether the opinion of the SGA is more authoritative than that of the independent veterinary pathologist experts at the SAC lab.

To conclude then, the SGA’s version of what happened to this eagle was that it died as a result of a terrible accident. However, they haven’t been able to provide any convincing evidence and what they propose happened is not supported by the evidence provided by the independent veterinary pathology experts.

The RSPB’s reaction to the SGA’s report included this statement:

“This is a rather desperate statement from the SGA, which seemingly does more to reveal their nature as apologists for the worst types of wildlife crime, as they try to defend the indefensible. Indeed, it calls into question their very commitment to the aims and objectives of the partnership for Action Against Wildlife crime Scotland (PAWS)”.

It’s interesting (and obviously totally unrelated) to learn that in a recent meeting with the Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse, the SGA were told very clearly that they would not be issued with licences to kill raptors for the foreseeable future due to the ongoing incidents of criminal raptor persecution. According to the police, the case of this particular eagle obviously falls within that category.  

Unfortunately we’ll probably never find out who was responsible for this eagle’s death. Had a full police search, under warrant, taken place then further supporting evidence might have been retrieved. As it stands, it appears that this supposedly ‘on-going investigation’ is as dead as the eagle.

This bird will simply join the long list of other dead or ‘missing’ eagles whose killers have never been brought to justice: 26 eagles in six years at our last count, including ‘Alma’ who was found poisoned in 2009 on, er, this estate.

Poisoning stats down, incredulity up

Poisoning 2008-2012The ‘official’ 2012 incidents of confirmed poisoned raptors in Scotland have just been published and show a marked decline in the number of poisoning incidents. According to the latest figures, the number of reported poisoned raptors fell from 16 in 2011 to three in 2012 (one golden eagle and two buzzards).

PAW Scotland press release here

BBC news article here

Are these figures an accurate reflection of what’s going on? We don’t think so. In fact we know they’re not. What the latest poisoning maps fail to show is the number of poisoned baits that were discovered in 2012, the number of other bird species that were poisoned in 2012, and the number of other animals that were poisoned in 2012. And obviously the maps don’t show the poisoning incidents that went undetected/unreported in 2012.

We know for certain that missing from this map is a poisoning incident recorded in the ‘Border’ region in May 2012. According to the published SASA statistics, a poisoned raven and crow were found, along with meat bait and two rabbit baits. This incident is listed as being subject to an ‘on-going police investigation’. Notably, this incident was not reported in the press. Why not? More importantly, why is this incident missing from this map? Why is the focus just on the number of confirmed poisoned raptors? Yes, the illegal poisoning of raptors is of huge concern, but it’s not just raptors that are victim to this barbaric practice. By excluding the discovery of poisoned baits and other types of poisoned species, the wider picture is not being shown. Why is that?

For example, we also know from the SASA stats that a horse and a dog were poisoned with Strychnine in January 2012, a cat was poisoned with Carbofuran and Isofenphos in March 2012, and another cat was poisoned with Carbofuran and Isofenphos in July 2012. None of these incidents appear on this map. There may well be others but the published SASA stats only go up to September 2012 – there’s the customary six-month delay in publishing more recent incidents. Obviously it’s not in the public interest to know where and when lethal poison is being laid out until many months after the event.

On a similar note, has anyone noticed the dot on the map in the Whithorn region (SW Scotland)? Could this possibly be the dead buzzard we blogged about last week (see here)? All we were told was that a man had been arrested following an investigation into a dead buzzard that had been found on the Glasserton Estate. Why didn’t the police press statement mention that the forensic tests confirmed it had been poisoned? Why are we not warned when potentially lethal poisoned baits are being placed out in areas where we might visit with our children and our pets? Why is it so difficult to tell the public what’s actually going on?

On a superficial level then, the latest figures suggest that all those people who’ve been busily poisoning our raptors for the last 100+ years have suddenly stopped. It’s highly implausible, but of course it is possible. Other possibile explanations include (a) the illegal poisoners have just got better at hiding the evidence; (b) they’ve switched to a new type of poison that isn’t currently being screened for in the SASA lab; (c) they’ve switched from poisoning as their method of choice to other methods that are less detectable, such as shooting and trapping.

Fortunately, the authorities are wise to point (c). Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse said: “There has been real progress but we will not be complacent. I am determined to stamp out these practices once and for all and will remain vigilant to any change in approach being taken by those who seek to persecute raptors“. Of course, this statement is almost a carbon copy of statements made by previous Environment Ministers, going back several years, all of whom were ‘determined to stamp out illegal raptor persecution’ and all of whom failed. The current Minister has recently been presented with three perfect opportunities to make a stand: the dead golden eagle found on Deeside with two broken legs which is believed to have been caught in an illegal trap on an Angus grouse moor before being dumped further north away from the estate (we’ll be blogging more about this case in the next few days); the shot and critically injured golden eagle found on a grouse moor in Dumfries and Galloway; and the shot hen harrier that was found dead on another sporting estate in Grampian. It’ll be interesting to see how many more of these incidents he will tolerate before stronger sanctions are applied. Or, more to the point, how many more incidents we will allow him to tolerate.

Landowners & gamekeepers claim ‘misrepresentation’ on BBC’s The One Show

One-Show-smallScottish Land and Estates and the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association have written a letter of complaint to the BBC, claiming ‘misrepresentation’ on The One Show programme.

The programme (see here and here) included a feature on golden eagle persecution and during a studio interview, the RSPB’s Stuart Benn laid the blame firmly at the door of gamekeepers on Scottish grouse moors.

Doug McAdam, Chief Exec of Scottish Land & Estates, took great exception to that statement and wrote a hilarious letter of complaint, on behalf of SLE and SGA, to The One Show’s executive editor, Sandy Smith.

Here is his letter: SLE SGA complaint about BBC One Show

According to dear old Doug, there have only been four dead golden eagles found since 2010 and no charges [for these deaths] have been brought against anyone involved in grouse moor management. Conveniently, he failed to include the other known incidents of dead raptors turning up on grouse moors since 2010 (including white-tailed eagles, red kites, hen harriers, buzzards, short-eared owls, sparrowhawks, peregrines, kestrels), or the critically-injured golden eagle found shot and left to die on a grouse moor, or indeed the satellite-tagged raptors (particularly golden eagles and hen harriers) who have all gone ‘missing’ after their last known signal was received from, er, a grouse moor. There may well be more of these ‘missing’ birds but of course we’re no longer allowed to hear about them after the introduction of the new PAW Scotland ‘protocol’ that aims to keep these incidents away from the public’s gaze (see here).

Apart from trying to play down the extent of persecution incidents on grouse moors, and inferring that a lack of criminal convictions is a good indicator that gamekeepers are not involved with the illegal killing of golden eagles on grouse moors, Doug goes on to emphasise the SLE’s involvement with PAW Scotland, as though membership of that ‘partnership’ should be a measure of good behaviour. We’ve all seen how effective these ‘partnerships’ can be, following the near-extinction of breeding hen harriers on English grouse moors during the six-year Hen Harrier Dialogue ‘partnership’ designed to resolve the conflict. Indeed, three raptor conservation organisations have now resigned from that particular ‘partnership’ because they recognised it could be used as a convenient political cover by certain organisations with grouse-shooting interests.

Doug makes an astonishing claim about the PAW Scotland partnership: “Our combined efforts with the police, rural communities, the RSPB and over 120 other relevant stakeholders have been universally acknowledged as a key factor in reducing the number of raptor persecution incidents“.

Talk about misleading! For a start, there are not 120 ‘relevant stakeholders’ in relation to addressing raptor persecution. Many of the stakeholders have absolutely no involvement in directly addressing raptor persecution – they are there to specifically address other types of wildlife crime such as poaching, theft of freshwater pearl mussels, bat persecution and badger persecution.

Secondly, where does this notion come from that work by PAW Scotland has been ‘universally acknowledged as a key factor in reducing the number of raptor persecution incidents’? Has it been ‘universally acknowledged’? We don’t think PAW Scotland has had any demonstrable impact whatsoever on the number of raptor persecution incidents – where’s the evidence? Perhaps by ‘universal’ he means those with a vested interest in having people think that illegal raptor persecution is being dealt with effectively (e.g. the police, SNH, Scottish Government, SLE, SGA etc etc).

Doug finishes by saying, “Owners of moorland estates all over Scotland look after golden eagles” (ahem) and he invites Sandy Smith to visit a grouse moor “to find out for yourself the valuable conservation measures being implemented“. Let’s hope Sandy takes him up on his offer. Ooh, which grouse moor to choose? We could give Sandy quite a few suggestions….

Sandy Smith responded with a letter of his own: One Show’s reply to SLE

He says he’s sent an email to all One Show staff and suppliers “asking them to ensure they don’t make assumptions about gamekeepers based on out of date or inaccurate assumptions“.

Interestingly, Sandy Smith was the former executive editor of Panorama – a programme recognised for its investigative journalism and an ability to differentiate between fact and PR. Let’s hope he’s taken those qualities with him to The One Show.

We’ve sent a letter to Sandy, giving him the URL of this blog, to ensure his staff are kept up to date and are not basing their work on inaccurate assumptions (spin). You may wish to do the same – send your email, marked for the attention of Sandy Smith, to: TheOneShowEmails@bbc.co.uk

If you think grouse moor owners and their gamekeepers need to be held to account for their activities, please sign this e-petition and share it with your friends and colleagues: SIGN HERE.

Here’s a photo showing how well golden eagles are looked after on some Scottish grouse moors. This one was found critically injured on Buccleuch Estate last aututmn – he had been shot and left to die, although it is not known on whose land he was shot. He is currently recuperating with the SSPCA after undergoing life-saving surgery. Needless to say, nobody has been charged for this crime.

The shot golden eagle undergoing emergency surgery

Northern England Raptor Forum walks out of Hen Harrier Dialogue process

In the last few days, many of us have been flabbergasted (or not) at the flat denials from several game-shooting industry representatives about the issue of illegal raptor persecution. Despite years, no, decades, of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, these industry leaders still refuse to accept the reality.

 In a way it’s good that they continue to display such open indifference because by doing so an increasingly-aware public are given an opportunity to see what the rest of us have been seeing for years. In the end, we firmly believe it will be the strength of public opinion that forces a change and finally puts an end to the decades of illegal killing. Nevertheless, as laughable as the industry’s excuses and explanations are, it is still frustrating to hear them because you know that as long as that’s what the leaders are thinking then the criminals within that sector won’t be inclined to stop the persecution.

nerf logo3So, take that sense of frustration you felt when you heard the latest denials, and multiply that by six years, and then add in the fact that over the same period the hen harrier breeding population has been reduced to a single pair in England, and it will come as no surprise to learn that the Northern England Raptor Forum (NERF) has resigned from the Hen Harrier Dialogue process. Indeed, you might well ask what took them so long!

For those who don’t know what the Hen Harrier Dialogue process is, you can read about it here. NERF, representing a suite of dedicated raptor study groups in northern England, has been involved in the Dialogue since day one, back in June 2006. Last summer, the RSPB were the first group to walk away from the process. Now NERF have walked, as of January 31st 2013. We understand that the Hawk and Owl Trust, the only other pro-raptor partner in the process, is still in it, for now at least.

Here are some excerpts from a NERF letter that leave no room to doubt their reasons for walking out:

Following the last meeting in June 2012, NERF members undertook a wide-ranging internal debate about continuing our involvement with the Hen Harrier Dialogue. At the conclusion of our discussions NERF members unanimously elected to resign from the Dialogue process with immediate effect. This decision has not been undertaken lightly. We believe that far from assisting the re-establishment of a viable and self-sustaining healthy English population of Hen Harriers that is free and able to share wild open spaces unmolested with red grouse the evidence reveals that the exact opposite has been achieved.

Despite many years of attempting to seek a resolution to the perceived conflict of interest between commercial driven grouse shooting and Hen Harriers, NERF can find no evidence of any progress towards that goal. Indeed the opposite is the case. In 2006 46 young fledged, four years later only 23 young fledged and in 2012 just one pair successfully reared young. Even the higher figure masks the reality that the successes are almost invariably located on the United Utilities Estate in Bowland or from nests that were guarded around the clock by volunteers. It should also be remembered that there is sufficient habitat in England to support 332 pairs. No matter how optimistic the analysis of the intervening years, this attempt at conflict resolution, from the Hen Harrier’s perspective, can only be judged to be a resounding failure.

It is the opinion of NERF members that our continued participation in the Dialogue lends an air of respectability to a process that is fundamentally flawed. The Dialogue was tasked with seeking conflict resolution to what is a shameful situation where a species is being illegally persecuted to oblivion simply because it is perceived to threaten the sporting interests of a very small minority of individuals. To achieve the required outcome NERF accepted that there needed to be compromise. However despite our best efforts we can find no evidence that some of those organisations that represent the grouse shooting industry have either a genuine intention to accept anything other than a zero upland population or the ability to guarantee that the grouse moor managers they represent will implement any strategy agreed through the Dialogue.

There is ample evidence to show this to be the case:

  • The English Hen Harrier population is so perilously low that there is no longer any conflict with commercial driven grouse shooting and yet the birds continue to be persecuted, as evidenced by the recent death of ‘Bowland Betty’ in the Yorkshire Dales.
  • The continued public denial by grouse moor managers that persecution is widespread within the industry gives NERF members no reason to believe that participation of the industry representatives is anything other than a political gesture intended to divert attention away from that very persecution being undertaken by their members.
  • The scientific modelling developed specifically to aid the search for a resolution was originally rejected by the shooting community and further modelling was undertaken at their behest. The resultant data emphatically show that two pairs of Hen Harriers can be accommodated on 5,000 acres without any commercial impact. Indeed the same data reports that the impact by three pairs is insignificant. This scientifically based model was rejected with a counter offer of one pair per 10,000 acres. This offer represents a 75% shift away from the science and it is difficult to see it as anything other than yet one more delaying tactic.
  • In an effort to reduce the potential impact of grouse chick predation diversionary feeding was trialled and shown to work. The proposed expansion to the scheme was rejected by several of the shooting organisations for no discernible reason. Once again the search for a solution was stalled.
  • The proposal to introduce a brood capture, cage and release scheme was always going to be unpalatable to raptor workers; nonetheless NERF was prepared to leave the proposal on the table for discussion once the population had returned to ‘carrying capacity’. Years after the scheme was initially proposed and with no actual progress being made the National Gamekeepers Organisation announced in 2012, the same year that only one pair nested successfully in England, that the scheme may need to be implemented as soon as two pairs, or one polygamous male and two females, attempt to breed on the same ground. Thus the brood capture, cage and release programme would be implemented when the English population reached three individuals, less than 0.5% of the ‘carrying capacity’ of 332 pairs. This is completely unacceptable not only to conservationists but to all right-minded people. Any future discussions in respect of that scheme were halted with that single statement. More years lost in a pointless discussion, but perhaps that was the intention.

NERF is no longer willing to have its reputation tarnished by involvement with a process that is, in our opinion, being deliberately frustrated by organisations that have failed to demonstrate any willingness to find a solution to what is after all an irrational and outdated belief that Hen Harrier numbers must be subjected to lethal control for the benefit of the grouse shooting industry.

Deeside golden eagle fiasco rumbles on as SGA release their ‘report’

The shambolic investigation into the death of the Deeside golden eagle last year continues (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here for our previous blogs about this appalling case).

This morning, the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association released a media statement and their investigatory ‘report’ into what they think happened to this eagle. It’s death was probably the result of a terrible accident, apparently. They say they only released their report because they became aware that it had been the subject of Freedom of Information requests to the Scottish Government.

At this stage, we are only posting their media statement, their ‘report’, and the RSPB’s response. We will be discussing the case as a whole, including the SGA’s conclusions, in a later blog, as we are awaiting responses from several FoI requests that potentially could be quite illuminating.

SGA media statement download: SGA RELEASE REPORT INTO EAGLE DEATH[1]

SGA investigatory report download: SGA Report, eagle death, Deeside[1]

RSPB media response:

RSPB Scotland responds to Scottish Gamekeepers Association eagle report

Responding to a statement released this morning by the Scottish Gamekeepers Association (SGA), Duncan Orr-Ewing, Head of Species and Land Management at RSPB Scotland, said:

“We reject absolutely these unprofessional assertions of the SGA in today’s press release concerning the case of the dead golden eagle found on Deeside in May 2012. Our previous media statement followed proper discussion and approval from the police, and was in full accordance with our joint working protocol. The official post mortem report concluded that the bird had suffered two broken legs due to trauma “that could be consistent with an injury caused by a spring type trap” and that the severity of these injuries “would prevent the bird from being able to take off.”

This is a rather desperate statement from the SGA, which seemingly does more to reveal their true nature as apologists for the worst types of wildlife crime, as they try to defend the indefensible. Indeed, it calls into question their very commitment to the aims and objectives of the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime Scotland (PAWS).

The illegal killing of golden eagles in Scotland is still a serious conservation issue, undermining the health of their population, and bringing international shame to our country. Over the past few years there have been a number of appalling cases involving the criminal killing of golden eagles, some of which have only come to light following the use of satellite tag technology. Rather than seeking excuses, we believe that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association’s efforts would be better directed at tackling those within their sector who still encourage such outdated practices”.  

The dead golden eagle     

Some comments on last night’s ‘Inside Out’ programme on hen harrier persecution

So, what did we learn from last night’s Inside Out programme on the illegal persecution of hen harriers?

According to Martin Gillibrand, the Moorland Association’s secretary, there is ‘no evidence’ that gamekeepers have been involved in hen harrier persecution, and the cause of their near extinction as a breeding species in England is “as a result of some very bad springs, breeding productivity has fallen off and the numbers have gone down“. Ah, so climate change is the real problem then. So if we all turn down our central heating and get our lofts insulated the hen harriers will be ok. It’s the same old story – give any explanation for the demise of the hen harrier except for the most obvious one.

Funny that he didn’t mention an earlier Moorland Association statement, given as written evidence during the recent parliamentary audit on wildlife crime (see here) –

“Until a full set of special rules allowing the positive management of hen harriers breeding on grouse moors is forthcoming from the Environment Council’s Hen Harrier Dialogue, moorland owners are within their rights and the law to deter the birds from settling on their moors to breed.”

Nor did he mention previous correspondence between the Moorland Association and DEFRA minister [grouse moor owner] Richard Benyon, discussing the possibility of derogations from international law that would allow for the legal ‘management’ of hen harriers (see here).

What else did we learn? Well, as predicted, the recent introduction of vicarious liability legislation in Scotland was touted as the solution to end raptor persecution. Unsurprisingly, this view was presented by Des Thompson of SNH – an organisation with a vested interest in making everyone believe that they’re dealing with the on-going (59 years and counting) problem of illegal raptor persecution. According to Des Thompson:

“We are seeing some real signs of success. There are indications now that the recorded incidents of poisoned birds of prey is declining“.

He went on: “We were despairing in Scotland a couple of years ago but things have got a lot better“.

Have they? Yes, the number of recorded poisoning incidents has dropped, but does that mean poisoning has dropped, or poisoning is still going on but it’s now better hidden, or that recorded poisoning incidents have dropped because other methods of persecution are now being employed? Here are three examples that suggest things have not ‘got better’ (see here, here and here).

It’s interesting that SNH should interpret the drop in recorded poisoning incidents as a ‘success’, when the only true measure of success will be if raptor populations (especially hen harrier and golden eagle) recover. If they do recover, it will take several years to see it. Sorry, but to suggest at this early stage that vicarious liability has been a ‘success’ is utter rubbish – it’s a statement with more spin than a Zanussi.

Yesterday we blogged about how vicarious liability isn’t the solution to solving the issue of illegal raptor persecution, mainly because the crux of the vicarious liability concept is that the individual criminal first has to be identified before his/her employer can be charged under the new legislation. However, this was written from a Scottish perspective, where evidence such as covert video surveillance (identifying an individual actually committing the crime) is so often banned as admissable evidence in court. However, in England, this type of evidence is frequently accepted in court and has been used very successfully to convict criminal gamekeepers. So, in this context, vicarious liability, if it was to be introduced in England, might just work.

If you missed last night’s programme you can watch it on iPlayer (here) for a limited period.

We’ll be blogging later today about the latest development from the Hen Harrier Dialogue…

For anagram fans: A SAD MORONS COALITION / MOORLAND ASSOCIATION