Tag: trap

SNH to publish consultation responses

snh_logoFollowing yesterday’s blog and the request to SNH to publish all the consultation responses relating to the 2013 General Licences (see here), SNH have just sent us the following tweet:

“We’re currently preparing the information for publication“.

Even if SNH redacts names in the documents, it should be obvious which response belongs to which group.

Credit where it’s due – thank you, SNH, we look forward to seeing this published.

Thank you and well done to all of you who publicised this request on Twitter and Facebook, and especially to those of you who made the effort and emailed SNH. We’ll blog again about the consultation responses once they’ve been published.

SNH announce changes to 2013 general licences

snh_logoIn October we blogged about how SNH was preparing to make changes to the 2013 General Licences via a public consultation process (see here).

They’ve now just published their proposed changes and by the looks of things, they’ve ignored almost every single recommendation except those made by the game-shooting lobby.

Their letter to consultees, in which they outline their proposed changes, can be read here.

Many concerns remain unaddressed, and particularly about the use of crow cage traps under the General Licence, including trap design (welfare issues), year-round use (as opposed to seasonal use), uncontrolled positioning of these traps, ineffective regulation of crow trap users and ineffective monitoring of crow cage trap use.

There’s one particularly strange ammendment:

“Requirement for persons to have read and understood conditions: We will remove the requirement for people to have read the licences before using them. New licenses will require users to ensure that they have understood the conditions“.

What’s the significance of removing the requirement for people to have read the licences before using them? This sounds like the introduction of a very dodgy legal loophole…we wonder who made this recommendation to SNH?

The controversial clam trapHowever, the biggest concern is that SNH has officially authorised the use of ‘clam’-type traps (see above), even though they are fully aware of concerns that these traps are likely to cause injury to non-target species (e.g. see here and here). SNH acknowledges these concerns and proposes to “commission research in 2013 that will examine how these traps are currently being used“. Why authorise a trap before you’ve carried out research to assess the potential damage that trap could cause? By authorising its use without being able to define the trap, SNH has just opened up the floodgates for gamekeepers and other users to put out any trap, call it a clam-type trap, hang an ID tag on it and it’ll be legal. How will SNH control trap size, height, spring tension? It’s nothing short of disgraceful that these traps have been authorised without a proper, independent assessment of their use. SNH say they will work with the representative bodies of the trap users as part of their research. Brilliant – do they really think those users are going to tell them when they’ve caught a non-target species? Or when they’ve ‘accidentally’ injured or killed a non-target species? You only have to read the evidence given in the current hare-snare trial to know the answer to that.

What a total shambles. What we’d like to see now is a complete list of ALL the consultation responses that SNH received for the 2013 general licences. Why? So we can assess whose recommendations SNH has listened to, and whose have been ignored. SNH has not made these consultation responses available in the public domain, but it’s common practice for any public authority conducting a consultation to do so (just look at the Environmental Audit Committee consultation on wildlife crime – every single consultation response was made publicly available).

We urge our blog readers to write to Robbie Kernahan, SNH Head of Wildlife Operations, and ask for ALL of the 2013 general licence consultation responses to be put on the SNH website. Here’s his email address: licensing@snh.gov.uk

Tayside Police respond to questions about dead eagle investigation

The dead golden eagleLast month we encouraged blog readers to contact Tayside Police Chief Constable Justine Curran to ask for further clarification about the way Tayside Police had handled the investigation into the death of a golden eagle. This young eagle was believed to have been illegally trapped on an Angus grouse moor and then moved, in the dead of the night, to a lay-by in Aberdeenshire where it was left, with horrific injuries, to die a slow and undoubtedly agonising death. See here and here for earlier blog posts about this case.

Once again our blog readers stepped up and contacted Tayside Police and once again this has paid off; Tayside Police have responded. We’ll come to that in a minute, but first of all a big thank you to everyone who tweeted, facebooked and shared the story on their own blogs and websites – people power in action. We’re convinced that it was the sheer volume of emails that prompted the response from Tayside Police, so well done to all involved.

Tayside Police also deserve credit for responding. This is the second time they’ve posted a comment on this blog and to be honest, we didn’t expect them to do it twice. However, although they deserve credit for responding, the content of their response still leaves a lot to be desired.

As a quick re-cap, here is a summary of the questions that were asked of Tayside Police:

  • Is the death of this golden eagle being treated as a CRIME?
  • Were attempts made to recover evidence from a wide search area?
  • Were attempts made to recover evidence from vehicles and buildings?
  • Why hasn’t Tayside Police publicised the death of this eagle?
  • Did Tayside Police provide details of the post-mortem to any defence agent?
  • Did Tayside Police advise the Minister’s office that the eagle’s injuries could have been caused by anything other than a spring-type trap? If so, what did they say could have been the cause of the injuries?

We’ll come back to each question once you’ve read the full police response. As before, their response was made via the comments section of the blog and we’re reproducing it here in case anyobody missed it:

TaysidePolice-logoComment from Wildlife and Environmental Crime Officer Tayside Police

Thank you for bringing these matters to my attention and by way of assurance, on behalf of Tayside Police, I am now in a position to provide an update in regard to many questions asked through the Blog. In order to deal with this effectively in the future, I would ask that any further correspondence be directed to this email address in order that they can be dealt with appropriately – mail@tayside.pnn.police.uk

You will appreciate that it has taken some time to consider the issues raised. The following comments take into account the on-going investigation into the death of the Golden Eagle in May 2012, as we continue to attempt to establish the exact cause of the eagle’s death.

This reported incident was recorded as a crime in Tayside area and has been investigated as such. Along with our partners in Grampian Police and the RSPB Investigations Unit, I have carried out a full and comprehensive enquiry into this incident. The enquiry remains ongoing and we have unfortunately yet to identify those responsible.

In every investigation, Police and other partner agencies consider the use of the media. In this case utilising the media was indeed considered by the enquiry team and after discussion with partners, it was decided not to publish the incident. Be assured that the media are considered in every investigation by Police and other agencies but I am content that the correct decision was made in this case.

As per Karen Hunter’s (Scottish Government) letter of the 24th October 2012 “It is extremely frustrating (for all involved in the investigation of wildlife crime) that it is so difficult to detect, and in some cases to prosecute and convict those responsible for wildlife crimes. However while it easy to make suppositions about circumstances of an apparent offence as reported in the media, wildlife crime must be subject to the same standard of proof as any other crime. Police and prosecutors also apply the same stringent procedure for dealing with wildlife crime as for any other sort of crime.”

In Scotland, in all cases, sufficient and admissible evidence is required to report a case to the Procurator Fiscal.

A charge may be proved by purely circumstantial evidence, by accounts from two or more credible witnesses or a combination of the two types of evidence but, in order to be sufficient, the material facts and circumstances must point only to one conclusion, and that is, the guilt of the accused. It is not necessary to have corroboration of every fact and circumstance in a chain of circumstantial evidence but the more important circumstances should be corroborated.

Evidence must also be legally admissible which means it has to have been obtained by legal means. Only competent evidence will be admitted by the courts. The court alone decides what evidence in a particular set of circumstances is admissible.

To clarify Police procedures, there can often be sufficient evidence to suggest a crime has been committed to allow for further investigation, but this does not automatically infer there is enough evidence to report the matter to the Procurator Fiscal or indeed secure a conviction. This is the current situation.

Please be advised that in relation to some of the more specific questions, asked regarding the on-going investigation, we can not disclose information due to the risk of compromising the investigation. However we can confirm that Tayside Police did not allow any access to the Golden Eagle carcass to any defence agent.

Be assured that Tayside Police are eager to bring the perpetrators to justice and in conjunction with the other agencies referred, Tayside Police will continue to investigate all circumstances surrounding this incident with a view to identifying those responsible. Police and other agencies will apply appropriate and proportionate resources to this type of crime on every occasion and diligent enquiry will be carried out.

Tayside Police will also continue to support and develop all preventative measures available to us and our partners to minimise the threat of any further such incidents occurring in the future.

I trust my comments will be of use to all those who have contacted Tayside Police regarding this incident.

In regard to other general questions, I can advise that this information can be accessed via your own website, the SASA website and RSPB website.

For any further comments or information that can assist us in this investigation please contact: mail@ tayside.pnn.police.uk , call 0300 111 2222 or speak to any Police Officer.

So, let’s go back to each question in turn.

Q1. Is the death of this golden eagle being treated as a crime? A. Yes.

Q2. Were attempts made to recover evidence from a wide search area? A. We can not disclose information due to the risk of compromising the investigation.

Q3. Were attempts made to recover evidence from vehicles and buildings? A. We can not disclose information due to the risk of compromising the investigation.

Q4. Why hasn’t Tayside Police publicised the death of this eagle? A. In every investigation, Police and other partner agencies consider the use of the media. In this case utilising the media was indeed considered by the enquiry team and after discussion with partners, it was decided not to publish the incident. Be assured that the media are considered in every investigation by Police and other agencies but I am content that the correct decision was made in this case.

Q5. Did Tayside Police provide details of the post-mortem to any defence agent? A. We can confirm that Tayside Police did not allow any access to the golden eagle carcass to any defence agent.

Q6. Did Tayside Police advise the Minister’s office that the eagle’s injuries could have been caused by anything other than a spring-type trap? If so, what did they say could have been the cause of the injuries? A. No response.

So what have we learned?

That Tayside Police won’t provide detailed information about the nature of their search. We didn’t really expect them to and in any case we already know (from other sources) that a search warrant was not requested for this investigation. It’s hard to understand why not but we’re unlikely to get an explanation.

We’ve learned that Tayside Police considered using the media to publicise this case but chose not too. Actually we didn’t just learn that, we already knew they hadn’t publicised it – what we asked was why they hadn’t publicised it. No satisfactory answer was received.

We’ve learned that Tayside Police didn’t allow any defence agent access to the eagle carcass. What we specifically asked though was whether they allowed a defence agent access to the post-mortem results. No satisfactory answer was received. Our sources suggest that a defence agent did have access to the post-mortem results, although who gave him that access remains a ‘mystery’.

Environment Minister Paul WheelhouseThe most important thing we learned was that this incident IS being treated as a crime by Tayside Police. That is reassuring, but begs the question then, who advised the Minister’s office to put out this statement:

“The reports may suggest that the circumstances of this incident were suggestive of an offence however there is no hard evidence and it remains possible that there is an alternative explanation“.

Tayside Police didn’t answer this question directly but we can infer that, as they were treating the incident as a crime, the advice to the Minister probably didn’t come from them. It’s also fair to assume that the advice didn’t come from the Police’s partner agency in this investigation, the RSPB, as they were the ones to put out a press release stating that they believed the eagle had been caught in an illegally-set trap. So who did advise the Minister? This is an important question; we need to be reassured that the Minister is not taking advice from anybody who has a vested interest in covering up this crime. Let’s ask him: “From whom did the Environment Minister’s office take advice that suggested this eagle’s death was anything other than a crime?” Email to: ministerforenvironment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

Lochindorb Estate hare snare trial: case continued!

Mountain hare (Photo: Neil McIntyre)We were expecting a verdict yesterday on the Lochindorb Estate hare snare trial, but Sheriff Abercrombie had other ideas.

The case has now been continued until 29 January 2013.

Clearly the sheriff recognises the significance of this test case and wants extra time to consider all the evidence.

Lochindorb Estate hare snare trial: verdict expected today

The long-running hare snare trial is expected to end today if Sheriff Abercrombie has reached a verdict.

We’ve blogged a lot about this case as the verdict could have far-reaching consequences on the way our uplands are managed, with a particular impact on grouse moor management practices.

Earlier posts can be read here (and see links within).

Two weeks ago the court heard the final pieces of evidence from the defence team, which consisted of a string of gamekeepers insisting that the type of snare used in this case is ‘selective’ (i.e. it doesn’t trap any species other than the target species). It must be a magic snare.

Many thanks to the contributor who send us a copy of the Badenoch & Strathspey Herald, dated 22 November 2012, with a summary of the evidence heard in court:

Gamekeepers tell trial of ‘selective’ snares

THREE gamekeepers have given evidence at the trial of a colleague facing allegations of illegal snaring of mountain hares on Lochindorb Estate more than three years ago.

The keepers told Sheriff Ian Abercrombie they had used the type of snare set by David Taylor and caught nothing other than mountain hares.

Former Lochindorb keeper Alexander McConnachie (66), Stuart Kennedy (45), from Tomatin, and Alan Hodgson (54), head keeper at Dalmagarry and a committee member of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association with special responsibility for snaring issues, told the trial they had all used the “W”  shaped snare, also known as a bow snare, as a means of controlling mountain hares on high ground on their estates.

David Taylor (65), who recently retired from his role as head keeper at Lochindorb, was charged with setting snares on April 14, 2009 on land at Lochan-t-Sidhie which were indiscriminate in which animals they could catch, contrary to the Conservation (Natural Habitats) Regulations which became law in 1994.

The trial, which started in March, reached its sixth day on Friday [16 Nov 2012] when the evidence was concluded.

Sheriff Abercrombie has agreed to written submissions being provided by both the Crown depute fiscal Iain Smith and the defence agent David McKie.

In evidence, Mr McConnachie said he was head keeper on Lochindorb between 1972 and 1993 before the new legislation came into place. He told the trial that where the snares were set, 1,500 feet above sea level, there were very few other species to be found.

Wildlife expert Hugo Straker (57), a senior adviser with the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and an expert on snaring law in Scotland, had earlier told the trial that the snares could be selective depending on how and where they were set. He also differentiated between a trap and a snare. In his opinion he said a trap was a spring-loaded device which can kill or trap an animal live while the snare was a “restraining device” which can kill.

Mr McConnachie told the court snares are never referred to as traps. ‘A trap is a mechanical device’, he said. Often they were concealed in a box to trap the targeted species and for the protection of other mammals. Wire cage traps, known as Larsen traps, were also used to control crows.

He said he used the “bow” snare used by Taylor extensively between 1990 and 1993 on Lochindorb because of the increase in tick of the moor.

Asked if he had ever found other animals caught in the snares he replied: “No, never. They are very selective, very humane and highly visible. I never caught anything else in them”.

He said you would get the occasional fox or roe dear [sic] at that level but it was quite rare to see a golden eagle.

Asked by depute fiscal lain Smith if an animal broke a snare how he would know it was a hare that did this. He said there was always evidence of hare fur nearby if a snare broke.

Mr Hodgson said the snares were perfectly legal at the time but gamekeepers had stopped using them because of this court case. He commented: “I would use them again in a minute. They were a brilliant tool. Easy to carry, easy to set and highly visible”.

Mr Hodgson said foxes and deer avoid them because they have forward vision. However, he said: “Hares have blind spots because their eyes are on the side of their heads, unlike predators”. He said he used them for nine years and never once found another species in them.

The trial was told by Mr Straker that since the alleged offence there had been major changes in law governing the use of snares going through parliament and all snares must have stops so mammals caught are not throttled and can be put down humanely. Everyone using them will require to be trained and certificated by a Scottish Government approved body and, from April next year, every snare will carry the operators certification number.

Police Constable Eric Sharkey (45), a wildlife officer with Northern Constabulary, inspected the site after a tip-off from a member of the public.

RSPB Scotland: 2011 persecution report published

RSPB Scotland has just published its latest report, The Illegal Killing of Birds of Prey in Scotland in 2011. You probably won’t be surprised or shocked by the content, especially if you’ve read the previous 17 annual reviews. In fact, when you read this 18th review, you might get a strong sense of déjà vu.

It opens with a Foreword by Stuart Housden, Director of RSPB Scotland. Apart from the new photo, this foreword looks like a cut and paste job from the 2010 report, with a few words or sentences added or adjusted. To be fair, not much has changed since the 2010 report was published so perhaps he felt justified in repeating what he’d written the previous year.

Then there are RSPB Scotland’s strategic recommendations for addressing raptor persecution. Again, these show a remarkable similarity to the recommendations made in the 2010 report, and also in the 2009 report. The recommendations were / are still good and to see them repeated again is a useful indicator of how little progress has been made by those with the power to push them forward.

Next come the tables showing the confirmed and probable persecution incidents recorded by the RSPB during 2011. It’s these tables that the game-shooting lobby usually object too – they’re especially reluctant to accept the ‘probable’ incidents although to date, they’ve failed to provide a convincing argument to account for any of them.

The data in the 2011 tables demonstrate once again that illegal raptor persecution is widespread, with incidents reported in Perthshire, Angus, South Lanarkshire, Aberdeenshire, Dumfries-shire, East Ayrshire, Borders and Inverness-shire. We counted 15 very familiar-sounding locations within these regions, although there are a few notable absentees this time. Have they stopped their criminal activities or have they just got better at covering up? Time will tell.

Just focusing on the confirmed incidents, in total 17 incidents of deliberate poison abuse were confirmed during 2011, involving 20 victims: 7 buzzards, 4 red kites, 1 golden eagle, 2 peregrines, 2 ravens and 4 other bird species. Sixteen other illegal incidents relating to shooting, nest destruction, and the use of uncovered spring traps or cage traps were confirmed. The victims included 8 buzzards, 2 peregrines, 1 goshawk, 1 sparrowhawk, 2 kestrels and 1 short-eared owl. As in previous years, not all of these incidents were publicised at the time they occurred. It’s a continual disappointment that several years have to pass before the public learns of these appalling crimes.

Once again the occupations and interests of those convicted for illegal raptor persecution crime have been analysed (data from 2003-2011 inclusive). 87% of them were gamekeepers (7% pigeon racers, 3% pest controllers, 3% farmers).

The report includes an interesting case study of poisoned raptors that have been found in recent years on the Glen Kyllachy and Farr Estate near Inverness. Very little of this information has been previously published and certainly this is the first time these photographs have been published. It’s a shame it’s taken several years for the info and images to reach the public domain but nevertheless it’s very encouraging to see RSPB Scotland highlight these cases, especially as Northern Constabulary hasn’t bothered.

All in all the report makes for grim reading, but nobody should be surprised by that. We all owe a large debt of gratitude to the RSPB’s Investigations Team for meticulously collecting these data and especially for making them publically available.

TO DOWNLOAD A COPY OF THE REPORT CLICK HERE

Here’s some media coverage:

RSPB Scotland press release here

BBC news article here

STV news article here

Herald Scotland article here

Scottish Gamekeepers Association: statement here

Scottish Land and Estates: nothing yet

@SNHMedia: “SNH report finds vast majority of gamekeepers highly qualified”. Link to this.

PAW Scotland: nothing yet

Update on the curious incident of the eagle in the night-time

Following on from yesterday’s blog entry, The curious incident of the eagle in the night-time (see here), we have an update…

First of all, a big thank vote of thanks to all of you who tweeted and shared the story on Facebook to help raise awareness about this situation. Special thanks to five Twitter users in particular: @TripleSter; @RareBirdAlertUK; @benjaminbittern; @Cekaelta; @ChrisGPackham.

Secondly, another big vote of thanks to everyone who made an effort and sent an email to Tayside Police’s Chief Constable to ask whether the death of this golden eagle was the subject of a criminal investigation. Your efforts have had an impact – a Tayside Police spokesman has responded by writing a comment on the blog. We’re reproducing it here so it doesn’t get buried:

“We are concerned regarding this matter and, along with our partners in Grampian Police and the RSPB Investigations Unit, as well as our own Wildlife and Environment Officer, are continuing to undertake enquiries. Please be assured that Tayside Police will continue to investigate all circumstances surrounding this incident with a view to identifying those responsible and holding them to account for what is a terrible deed. Anyone who has information that can assist us should call 0300 111 2222, or speak to any officer“.

Before we discuss their comment, we’d like to acknowledge Tayside Police for engaging in the discussion. Although they have a duty to respond to emails sent to them by members of the public, they aren’t obliged to post comments on blogs or a similar forum and they deserve some credit for doing so in this instance.

Now, let’s get down to what they said:

They are concerned. That’s good.

They are continuing to make enquiries. That’s very good, but can we clarify that “this matter” / “incident” / “terrible deed” is in fact a CRIME? There seems to be a reluctance to use this term. This is an important distinction to make as it will affect the official wildlife crime stats that the police now have to provide to the Scottish Government each year (this requirement was brought in with the WANE Act) and also the ‘stats’ that the persecution-deniers trot out each year to ‘prove’ that illegal raptor persecution is ‘in decline’.

They are conducting their enquiries in partnership with Grampian Police and the RSPB Investigations Unit. That’s also very good.

They will “continue to investigate all circumstances surrounding this incident with a view to identifying those responsible and holding them to account for what is a terrible deed”. That sounds very good but is it anything more than just a media sound bite designed to placate an increasingly frustrated general public? It’s been six months, nearly seven months, since that eagle was found dead in early May 2012. What chances of finding any evidence now or in the future, so long after the event?

In the interests of transparency, we’d like to ask some further questions about the investigation to date. Obviously we don’t wish to jeopardise an on-going criminal investigation and so Tayside Police may not wish to answer these questions, although it is common practice for police forces to release some information during criminal inquiries so let’s see if they’re able to help this time. The questions that we’re asking should not have any negative effect on their continuing enquiries because it’s probably fair to say this investigation is now dead in the water; nobody is going to be brought to justice for the death of this eagle. We also know that the Scottish Gamekeepers Association is conducting its own ‘inquiry’ and that information about this investigation may have been passed to them by Tayside Police. If so, we hope the police will not treat us any differently.

We’d be interested to learn whether, during the early stages of the investigation, attempts were made to recover evidence from a wider search area of the land where the eagle was motionless for 15 hours before it was moved north to the lay-by where it was left to die? Also, were attempts made to recover evidence (e.g. eagle feathers or blood) from any vehicles or buildings that may have been used in this crime?

We’d also be interested to learn why Tayside Police haven’t publicised this incident, either at the time the dead eagle was discovered, or in the following months (e.g. with an appeal for information)? Tayside Police regularly post news items, appeals for information and investigation updates in the news section of their website; we wonder why this case was treated differently?

We also understand that there might have been some sort of approach by a defence agent wishing to access the dead eagle and/or the post-mortem results and we suspect this might have been an attempt to discredit the findings of the official post-mortem. i.e. to challenge the conclusions drawn by experts at the Scottish Agricultural College lab that the eagle’s severe leg injuries could have been caused by a spring-type trap. Did Tayside Police provide the findings of the official post-mortem to any defence agent? 

And finally, we go back to the Environment Minister’s statement about this incident. In whose interest was it to suggest that this was not a criminal offence? Who advised the Minister that the eagle’s injuries could have been the result of anything other than a criminal offence? It probably wasn’t the RSPB Investigations Unit given they put out a press release stating that they believed the eagle had been caught in an illegally-set trap (see press release here). That only leaves the police, unless of course the Minister’s office is taking advice from a defence agent, and that would certainly seem absurd. If it was Tayside Police, and we’re not saying it was, doing so would appear to undermine a criminal investigation before it even got off the ground (no pun intended).

Surely a government minister would not release a statement unless he was sure the advice he had being given was accurate? So, did Tayside Police advise the Minister’s office that the eagle’s injuries could have been caused by something other than a spring-type trap? If they did, it’d be interesting to know what the Minister’s office was told could have caused the eagle’s injuries other than a spring-type trap.

We’re calling on our blog readers to help find answers to these questions by asking Tayside Police, en-masse, to provide clarification on the above points. Just writing about the issues on a blog can help raise awareness but it’s unlikely to produce tangible results – the police aren’t obliged to respond (although, as mentioned above, Tayside Police, to their credit, did so yesterday and for that we applaud them). However, they are obliged to respond to individual emails from the general public.

This is an opportunity to shine a light on the investigation of raptor persecution crimes in the Tayside region. Regular blog readers will be well aware that the death of this golden eagle is not an isolated incident;  this region has seen more than its fair share of illegal raptor persecution in recent years, including the discovery of poisoned golden eagles, white-tailed eagles, buzzards, red kites, sparrowhawks, tawny owls, crows, as well as a series of poisoned baits. Very few of these crimes have resulted in prosecutions.

Here’s a summary of the questions to be asked:

  • Is the death of this golden eagle being treated as a CRIME?
  • Were attempts made to recover evidence from a wide search area?
  • Were attempts made to recover evidence from vehicles and buildings?
  • Why hasn’t Tayside Police publicised the death of this eagle?
  • Did Tayside Police provide details of the post-mortem to any defence agent?
  • Did Tayside Police advise the Minister’s office that the eagle’s injuries could have been caused by anything other than a spring-type trap? If so, what did they say could have been the cause of the injuries?

Please send questions to Tayside Police Chief Constable Justine Curran: justine.curran@tayside.pnn.police.uk

The curious incident of the eagle in the night-time

Six months ago, a dead golden eagle was found close to a lay-by on a quiet road in Aberdeenshire. The bird’s satellite-tracking data showed it had remained motionless on an Angus grouse moor for 15 hours, before inexplicably moving 15km north to the lay-by, in the dead of night, where it was found dead several days later. A post-mortem conducted by the Scottish Agricultural College laboratory in Aberdeenshire concluded that the eagle had suffered two broken legs due to trauma “that could be consistent with an injury caused by a spring type trap“. The SAC said the severity of the eagle’s injuries “would prevent the bird from being able to take off“.

This incident was not reported in the press until September 2012, four months after the eagle’s carcass had been discovered (see earlier blog on this here). Notably, the news was not released by Tayside Police, or Grampian Police; it was the RSPB that went public on this.

Since then there has been much confusion and muddying of the waters surrounding this case. As soon as the RSPB’s press release hit the national media, Environment Minister Paul Wheelhouse tweeted this:

26th September 2012 @PaulWheelhouse: This is a terrible story of an eagle suffering a lingering death – anyone with info please contact the police. He linked his tweet to this BBC news story.

It seems that like the majority of us, the Environment Minister considered this eagle’s death to be linked to a criminal offence. Why else would he have urged people to contact the police with information?

The public’s response to the media stories resulted in many people writing to the Environment Minister to express their outrage at the illegal killing of yet another golden eagle. The Minister’s response in early October was baffling; despite all the evidence to the contrary (sat tag data, corpse found, post-mortem results, and a long, long history of illegal raptor persecution linked to game management practices on grouse moors), as well as the inference from his earlier tweet that he believed this eagle’s death to be the result of a criminal act, the Minister’s aide said this:

“The reports may suggest that the circumstances of this incident were suggestive of an offence however there is no hard evidence and it remains possible that there is an alternative explanation” (see here for earlier blog on this).

This statement led to further angry letters to the Minister, and on 24th October his aide wrote the following response to one of our blog readers:

“You have commented on the Minister’s letter regarding the incident involving a young golden eagle in Aberdeenshire. Please allow me to clarify. The reports may suggest that the circumstances of this incident were highly suggestive of an offence involving illegal persecution. However, whilst that may be the most likely explanation, there is unfortunately no hard evidence to that effect. In the circumstances therefore it is not appropriate to comment on this case as an example of illegal activity. However, clearly the RSPB have offered a reward for information and it remains possible that this may yet be treated as a criminal matter” (click here to read the full letter in the comments section of an earlier blog on this).

So here we are in November and it is still not clear whether this case is being treated as a criminal investigation:

  • The Environment Minister thinks that it’s inappropriate to class this incident as a criminal matter.
  • Tayside Police haven’t put out any media statements whatsoever about this eagle.
  • Grampian Police haven’t put out any media statements whatsoever about this eagle.
  • PAW Scotland haven’t put out any media statements whatsoever about this eagle.

Wildlife crime, and specifically the illegal persecution of raptors, has been identified as a priority issue by the Scottish Government and the Scottish Police. We’re repeatedly told that raptor persecution incidents will be robustly investigated and the perpetrators brought to justice. Given the above bullet points, are we reassured that this is the case? Where’s the transparency? Some might argue that this is a deliberate attempt to suppress the figures concerning the number of illegally-killed golden eagles in Scotland. The question to be asked is very clear and very simple:

Is the death of this golden eagle the subject of a criminal investigation?

Let’s ask Tayside Police Chief Constable Justine Curran. Email: justine.curran@tayside.pnn.police.uk

Hare snare trial drags on

The hare snare trial, which is trying to establish whether a snare is a ‘trap’ (in legal terms) and if so, whether that trap is selective or non-selective, continued at Inverness Sheriff Court last Friday. The trial is centred on the allegation that a gamekeeper used illegal snares to take or kill mountain hares on Lochindorb Estate. He denies the charge. See here for background info on this landmark case.

The case was continued and is now set to conclude at the end of this month.

Here’s an earlier report by the SSPCA which shows that snares are, amongst other things, indiscriminate. Here’s an earlier scientific report, commissioned by DEFRA and undertaken by the Central Science Lab and GWCT, which shows that snares are, amongst other things, indiscriminate.

Here’s a link to the SSPCA website where they report on today’s conviction of a Scottish farmer (Iain Hugh McFadzean) for causing a badger unneccessary suffering in an illegally set snare. Well done once again to the SSPCA – another successful wildlife crime conviction to their credit. Can’t understand why the Scottish Government is dragging its heels in bringing forward the consultation to increase SSPCA’s powers. Unless of course they’re under pressure from certain groups who want to remain free to commit wildlife crime without being caught…

2013 general licence consultation: OneKind’s response

Last month we blogged about how SNH was preparing to make changes to the 2013 General Licences via a consultation process (see here).

General Licences are not exactly what they say on the tin – they’re general but there’s no approval process for anyone to have one. If you want to kill certain bird species using certain methods, you don’t need to demonstrate any qualification or competence or even have proven experience: you simply download a copy of a General Licence and as long as you’ve read it (or say you’ve read it) and understood the terms, you’re good to go. It’s strange that it’s even called a ‘licence’ given that the user doesn’t have to do anything special in order to get one.

There are very obvious concerns with this form of ‘licensing’, as well as the ‘licences’ themselves, and we’ve blogged about some of these concerns before (e.g. see here, here, here, here and here).

The consultation has now closed and we expect to see the ammended new ‘licences’ on the SNH website in early December. It would also be interesting to see copies of all the comments that had been made during the consultation process. Whether SNH will publish those remains to be seen.

One group that participated in the consultation process was the animal charity, OneKind. They’ve published their responses which can be read here. Well done indeed.