Tag: trap

Environment Minister’s response to dead eagle found in Grampian

Un-fucking-believable. Yes, it’s a swear word but that’s the least of our concerns. Read what follows and you’ll be swearing in anger too…

The Environment Minister has responded to a letter sent to him by one of our readers (Dave Adam) concerning the appalling death of that golden eagle back in May (see here for details of that bird’s demise). This is the eagle whose satellite transmitter showed the bird went down on a grouse moor in Glen Esk, Angus for 15 hours (an area where another golden eagle had previously been found poisoned in 2009, oh, and a buzzard was also found poisoned there in 2008 although that wasn’t publicised at the time) and then this eagle miraculously moved to a layby in Aberdeen, in the middle of the night, where it was found dead several days later with two broken legs – injuries consistent with being caught in a leg-hold trap. Yes, THAT eagle. According to the Minister, this scenario may not have been the result of criminal activity.

Dave Adam has posted the Minister’s response letter in the comments section of the original post (thank you) but it’s far too important for it to remain there, hence the decision to publish it here.

Here it is in full:

Thank you for your letter of the 25 September 2012 to the Minister for Environment and Climate Change, Mr Paul Wheelhouse. I have been asked to respond.

I agree that the media reports were a terrible story of the suffering of a young golden eagle. 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. It is therefore inappropriate for me to comment.

The unlawful killing of any raptors has no place in today’s Scotland and we will continue to work hard to eradicate this criminal activity. We believe that the partnership approach with the Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime (PAW) Scotland, is bringing the reduction in bird of prey poisoning that can be seen in the statistics in recent years. However we are not complacent and if there is evidence of a switch to other methods of persecution we will take action to bear down on those methods.

The Scottish Government recognises that game shooting generates significant income and employment in our rural economy, often in areas where there are few alternative opportunities. However it is important that these businesses operate within the law, and the Scottish Government recognises that most such businesses do so. However where there appear to be conflicts for example between raptors and highly-intensive grouse moor management, we believe that an approach of seeking to improve the effectiveness of law enforcement while working with partner organisations to isolate those persisting with illegal practices is the best way forward.

Scottish police have a clear focus on tackling wildlife crime cases. Law enforcement’s role in tackling wildlife crime was reviewed by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary Scotland in 2008, and there was a follow-up review in 2009. As a result there are officers with wildlife crime duties in every police force area and a consistent and professional approach from senior officers.

It is frustrating that it is difficult to detect, 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.

You say that the golden eagle population is threatened by illegal persecution. The Golden Eagle Conservation Framework published by SNH in 2008 did identify persecution in eastern Scotland and food shortages in the west as threats to the birds’ conservation status. It is difficult to estimate the amount of illegal persecution, but we recognise that in the longer term the best measure of success in dealing with raptor persecution will be when vacant golden eagle territories, as identified in the Framework document, are re-occupied.

K. Hunter, Policy Officer, Scottish Government.

Like we said at the top, un-fucking-believable. Especially coming a day after we learn that another golden eagle was the target of criminal activity on a grouse moor, this time being found shot and critically injured and left to die.

What did we say yesterday about needing a strong response from government, and not the usual platitudes about ‘partnership working’?

The question is, what are we going to do about it? And by ‘we’, that means all of us. Angry? You’d better believe it.

If you want to tell him how angry you are, and why (because it obviously needs spelling out) here’s his email address again: ministerforenvironment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

When you’ve done that, send a copy to Alex Salmond: FirstMinister@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

These politicians HAVE to understand that we’re not tolerating this any longer.

Latest poisoning figures are just a smokescreen

So, SGA Chairman Alex Hogg is “hugely encouraged” by the forthcoming 2012 poisoning statistics, due to be released by the government agency SASA in the next few days (see here for STV news story and here for SGA press release). The figures are expected to show just two confirmed raptor poisonings in the first half of 2012, a considerable drop from the figures of previous years.

Unfortunately, these figues are just a small part of the story, as many regular readers will already be aware. We’ve blogged about this before, back in March when the poisoning figures for 2011 were published (see here for our previous post). As we said then, these figures look promising on a superficial level but do they really reflect the true extent of illegal persecution?

The lower poisoning figures may well be a true indicator that fewer people are still poisoning raptors. That’s what the SGA and friends clearly think and would like the rest of us to think. However, another equally plausible explanation is that the poisoners are just getting better at hiding the evidence. We’ve always known that the published poisoning figures just show a tiny fraction of actual poisoning incidents; these poisonings usually take place in vastly remote areas where few people are around to find the evidence. The poisoned birds that have been discovered have usually been discovered by chance. More recently, they’ve been discovered because more raptors are now fitted with satellite tags so it’s easier to follow their movements and to find the locations where they die.

There is another plausible explanation, too. As we’ve also said before, poisoning is not the only method of illegally killing raptors. Perhaps the lower poisoning figures reflect a substantial shift in the methods used to persecute raptors. Are more raptors being shot at the nest? Are more raptors being shot at roost sites? Are more nests and eggs being destroyed? Are more raptors being caught in traps and being bludgeoned to death? The persecutors know very well that the government doesn’t record these types of incidents; only reported poisoning incidents are published. What better way to make it look like you’ve cleaned up your act than by reducing the poisoning but increasing the other techniques that you know will never be officially reported? (Except by the RSPB who always publish these other persecution incidents in their annual reports, but which are then dismissed as being ‘unofficial’ and ‘exaggerated’ by the game-shooting lobby).

Is it plausible that other persecution methods have now taken precedence over poisoning? Let’s look at the hen harrier situation. The UK’s hen harriers continue to spiral towards oblivion and the main cause has been identified as illegal persecution. Everyone knows it and even the government has acknowledged it. But how many hen harriers do you see listed in the annual poisoning figures? Very few indeed. Mainly because poison is rarely used to kill harriers – they’re not typically a scavenging species that depends on carrion so they’re harder to poison. But just because they don’t feature on the annual list of poisoned raptors doesn’t mean they’re not persecuted! Of course they are; the national hen harrier survey results say it all.

If anyone is still in any doubt about whether the latest poisoning figures are an accurate reflection of the extent of illegal raptor persecution, then consider this. Will the figures for Jan-June 2012 include this ‘missing’ satellite-tagged golden eagle (here), or this ‘missing’ satellite-tagged golden eagle (here), or this dead golden eagle found with substantial injuries (here), or this dead golden eagle found in what was described as ‘suspicious circumstances’ here? Or just the one confirmed poisoned golden eagle found dead in Lochaber (here)?

Gamekeeper’s wildlife crime conviction(s) overturned

Shooting Times has an interesting article out today (see here), claiming that Leicestershire gamekeeper Ivan Crane has had three wildlife crime convictions overturned after the appeal judge claimed the behaviour of the investigating police officer was “very underhand“.

Shooting Times reports that His Honour Judge Tony Mitchell went further with his scathing attack, saying: “I can’t think of a case which more fairly fits an abuse of power, an abuse of position, and therefore an abuse of process“.

It seems the police officer’s [supposed] mistake was not to inform Crane that he could no longer use the General Licence for trapping birds due to his two recent wildlife crime convictions. Instead, the officer took the initiative and covertly filmed a Larsen trap on Crane’s farm.

Crane’s previous wildlife crime convictions were for using an illegal pole trap and unsafe storage of pesticides (see here). He was then later convicted for unlawfully using a Larsen trap (see here), which seems to have been the catalyst to launch his appeal.

Local newspapers (eg. Lutterworth Mail) also seem to be running the story but the actual article appears to be currently unavailable on the web (google it and see if you can find it). One of the headlines (that is accessible) suggests that the Judge has ordered the Crown Prosecution Service to pay Crane’s legal bill of £35,000.

It’s not clear to us whether all three of Crane’s wildlife crime convictions have been overturned (as suggested by Shooting Times) or just the conviction for unlawfully using a Larsen trap.

It’s all a bit odd really. Isn’t it the General Licence user’s responsibility to understand the terms and conditions of General Licence use? It’s a specified requirement on the Scottish General Licences; perhaps not on the English ones? Since when has ignorance of the law been an acceptable defence? To put the situation in context….if someone had a driving conviction and was a disqualified driver, and then they drove their car whilst disqualified and received a second conviction, could they get that conviction overturned and their legal costs paid if they argued that the police officer hadn’t advised them that it was illegal for them to drive and the police had used ‘covert’ surveillance to catch them?

Another fine example of the difficulties faced by those trying to investigate and prosecute alleged wildlife crime offences in the UK. Their chances of success get slimmer by the day.

Photo: clam trap – why haven’t these been banned?

This is a photograph of a clam trap, also known as a snapper trap, butterfly trap and Larsen mate trap. They are used to trap corvids, although obviously the traps are indiscriminate and can also be used to catch raptors and other protected species. We’ve recently blogged about clam traps and the controversy over whether they are a legal or an illegal trap (see here).

The clam trap photographed here shows a slight variation of use. Usually the trap will be held open by a false perch that collapses when weight is applied (e.g. when a bird lands on it) which causes the trap to snap shut. In this photo the false perch is absent and instead, the trap is set to snap shut when weight is applied to the base (e.g. when a bird lands on the bait).

It’s quite incredible that SNH has not yet banned the use of these traps on welfare grounds. Just look at the photograph. Imagine if a large raptor (e.g. buzzard, kite, goshawk, eagle) is caught in one of these things. Apart from the injuries that could be caused to the bird when the trap snaps shut (they are designed to shut with speed and force so it’s highly probable that the bird’s wings will still be open and thus caught in the jaws of the trap as it snaps shut), the trapped bird then has to endure up to 24 hours inside this cage before it is checked by the trap operator. Would it be able to move inside the trap? Does it have a perch? Does it have water? Does it have shelter? All these are basic requirements covering the use of crow cage traps and Larsen traps where a decoy bird is in use. Why should a clam trap be exempt from these welfare requirements? Is it because there isn’t a decoy bird in use? What about the welfare requirements of the trapped bird, whether it be a target or a non-target species? It’s probably fair to say that it would be stressful for any large raptor to be caught inside one of these things, whether it’s injured or not, and to be trapped like that for up to 24 hours? That’s assuming the trap operator bothers to do the 24 hour check. In our view it fails on all welfare considerations. The general licences used to permit the use of crow traps also explicitly ‘do not permit the use of any form of spring-over trap’. What’s this then if it isn’t a form of spring-over trap? Some organisations have argued that it isn’t a form of spring-over trap…no prizes for guessing who that was.

Unsurprisingly, the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association supports the use of these traps (see here and here) as does Scottish Land and Estates [formerly known as SRPBA] (see here).

Whilst we all wait for SNH to make a decision on the legality of clam traps….if you see one of these traps you are advised to report it immediately to the police, SSPCA and RSPB. As with the other crow cage traps, the clam trap should have an identification code attached along with the telephone number of the local Police Wildlife Crime Officer. See here for a discussion on the legalities of other crow cage traps and what to do when you find one.

Traps in our countryside: a walker’s guide

Thanks to Steve from the animal protection charity OneKind who has advised that his 2010 article, ‘Traps in our countryside: a walker’s guide’ has now been updated.

This excellent illustrated guide provides detailed information for the general public on how to distinguish a legal trap from an illegal trap. The updated version also includes information about a new trap which is known by several common names: clam trap, snapper trap, butterfly trap and Larsen mate trap. This particular trap is causing controversy: the game-shooting industry argues it is legal and safe whereas others strongly disagree and some have even suggested its use could be an offence under animal welfare legislation, although this has yet to be tested in a court of law. It is understood that SNH is still consulting about the lawfulness of this trap and more information should be forthcoming in the near future (see here).

The SGA’s views on the clam trap can be read here and here. A copy of their consultation response to SNH on the use of clam traps can be read here.

A copy of the SRPBA’s (now called Scottish Land and Estates) consultation response to SNH on the use of clam traps can be read here. Its interesting to compare this with the SGA’s response – copy and paste, anyone?

Click here to read OneKind’s updated article – Traps in our Countryside: a walker’s guide.

Click here to read our recent article – Crow Traps: what you should know.

Outrage at (more) Peak District bird of prey persecution

The RSPB and Severn Trent Water have today expressed their outrage at the ‘wanton destruction’ over the last few days of the nest of one of Britain’s most persecuted raptors. Goshawk eggs, only days from hatching, were found smashed underneath a nest in the Upper Derwent Valley on land managed by Severn Trent Water.

It is the latest in a long line of raptor persecution incidents in the Peak District (see here for a 2006 RSPB report aptly named Peak Malpractice, and here for a 2007 updated report). The last reported incident was the case of gamekeeper Glenn Brown, who was convicted last year after RSPB investigators filmed him using a caged pigeon to lure raptors into a trap on National Trust-owned Howden Moor (see here). This latest incident demonstrates just how ineffective Brown’s sentence was (100 hours community service ‘ain’t gonna deter anybody – sure, he also had to pay costs but do you really think he’ll be paying those from his own pocket?). That this latest attack has happened at all should come as no surprise to anybody.

The RSPB says this now leaves only one known active goshawk nest in the entire Derwent Valley, which previously had held six pairs. The RSPB is offering a £1,000 reward for information leading to a conviction.

RSPB press release here

More on Aswanley Estate gamekeeper – how the finer details matter

Last month we blogged about the failed appeal of convicted Aswanley Estate gamekeeper Craig Barrie (see here). In October 2011, Barrie had been fined £520 at Aberdeen Sheriff Court for the illegal possession and control of a live wild bird (a pigeon) that had been discovered inside a cage trap on this Aberdeenshire estate.

More detail has now emerged about this case, reported in the latest edition (#66) of the RSPB’s Investigations Newsletter Legal Eagle. The article describes the background to the investigation, including how an RSPB Investigations officer had discovered the pigeon inside the trap in September 2010. Crucially, the trap doors were not ‘set’. The RSPB Investigator called out Grampian police, who came to investigate the trap, accompanied by Barrie. The article says: “They found the trap complete with captive pigeon and Craig Barrie admitted that he was responsible for operation of the trap“.

Interestingly, the article says that although Barrie was convicted for possession and control of a live wild bird (contrary to the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981), “a plea of not guilty to illegally using a cage trap was accepted“.

So here is a gamekeeper who has reportedly admitted that he was responsible for the operation of the trap, and has been convicted of being in control of the pigeon that was found inside the trap, and yet it was accepted that he was not guilty of illegally using a cage trap! Without knowing the complexities of the legal argument put forward, it may be safe to assume that this plea was accepted because even though there was a pigeon in the ‘lure/bait’ compartment of the trap, and Barrie was responsible for the pigeon being in there, the trap wasn’t actually ‘set’ at the time it was discovered, so it could be argued that the trap wasn’t ‘being used’ in the strictest sense of the word. Perhaps it was argued that because the live pigeon was inside the trap, it was being used just as a sort of make-shift aviary, not as a trap! The devil’s in the detail, as they say.

Legal Eagle #66 has yet to be published (we were given a sneak preview) but when it is published you’ll be able to find it on this page here.

news round-up: burned barn owls, shot buzzards & illegal trapping

Police in Merseyside are appealing for information after the charred bodies of six barn owls were discovered in a barn in Moss Lane, Formby. Police believe the owls had been deliberately set on fire. It is not known when they were burned, or whether these were wild or captive owls. Less than half a mile away, the body of a shot buzzard was found. News article in the Liverpool Echo here.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the country a joint police/RSPB investigation has started in North Lincolnshire after the discovery of three dead buzzards in the area since October 2011. At least two of them are believed to have been shot. News article in the Grimsby Telegraph here.

In Leicestershire, a previously convicted farmer/part-time gamekeeper, Ivan Peter Crane, has been fined £2,500 (+ costs) after being convicted of using a Larsen trap without an appropriate licence. Crane already had wildlife crime convictions from April 2011, for trying to kill raptors with an illegal pole-trap and also for the illegal and unsafe storage of pesticides (see here). It was because of these earlier convictions that Crane could no longer trap birds on the farm without applying for an individual licence, which he failed to do. Press release from Natural England here.

Mountain hare protection begins today

Thanks to the recent Wildilfe and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act 2011 [also known as the WANE Act], there is now a closed season which prevents the killing of hares during certain periods in the year. The closed season for mountain hares begins today (March 1) until 31 July. This means that it is now an offence to intentionally or recklessly kill, injure or take a mountain hare in the closed season. The closed season for brown hares is Feb 1 – Sept 30.

It’s important that this new legislation is effectively enforced. Hares are an essential part of the golden eagle’s diet, especially in the summer months, and there have long been concerns that the widespread killing of mountain hares on grouse moors (estimated at 25,000 per year) is having a detrimental impact on golden eagle breeding productivity in certain parts of the country (see the SNH Conservation Framework for Golden Eagles here).

During the closed season, ALL killing of mountain hares is now unlawful, unless a specific SNH licence has been granted to permit killing within this period. Licences can only be granted for specific purposes which include preventing spread of disease and preventing serious damage. However, SNH guidance states that a licence will only be granted in exceptional circumstances (see here).

This is important for the general public to understand. If anyone sees any evidence of mountain hares being killed between now and 31 July, it will most likely be unlawful (although not ‘certainly’ unlawful) and should therefore be reported straight away so that the authorities can check with SNH whether a licence has been issued.

There are also restrictions on the methods used to kill mountain hares – and these restrictions apply throughout the year (even during the open season when killing mountain hares is permitted). In general terms, it is an offence to trap mountain hares in snares (although again, there are exceptions and a special licence is available in some circumstances). Whether the snare has been set to target the mountain hare specifically, or for some other animal (e.g. a fox) is irrelevant. It could be considered ‘reckless’ under the legislation if a snare has been set in an area known to be frequented by mountain hares. The ‘approved’ method of killing mountain hares is to shoot them (but only during the open season, NOT during the closed season, and even then there are further restrictions on the type of shooting permitted).

Anyone out and about on the moors this spring and summer should keep an eye out for any sign of unlawful mountain hare killing. Take photographs, note your location and REPORT IT. We recommend informing the police and especially the SSPCA.

SSPCA TELEPHONE HOTLINE: 03000-999-999

Mountain hare information from the Hare Preservation Trust here

Mountain hare information from The Mammal Society here

SGA says that raptor workers could be laundering eggs & chicks

The Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association is clearly on the ropes as the mounting body of evidence showing criminal gamekeeper activity gains more and more public attention. One of the SGA’s regular spokesmen, the perenially entertaining Bert Burnett, has now suggested that raptor fieldworkers could be taking raptor eggs and chicks from nests, to launder them on the black market! It’s a bit like saying Greenpeace activists could be harpooning whales to sell to the Japanese, or that the RSPCA could be collecting stray dogs to sell the meat and skins to the Chinese. All possible, of course, but all as improbable as Bert becoming Head of MENSA.

In his latest message to the SGA membership, he also suggests that if licenced raptor workers don’t give prior notice to the gamekeeper of their intended visit, they are not following ‘good practice’. This is, of course, totally incorrect, as all licensed raptor fieldworkers in Scotland already know. The ‘good practice guide’ used by Scotland’s raptor workers (which incidentally is endorsed by SNH) does not say that raptor fieldworkers need to provide advance warning of their intention to visit any raptor site.  Indeed, under the Land Reform Act (Scotland) 2003, volunteer raptor surveyors have a statutory right of access, just as any other member of the public. The difference between a raptor fieldworker and any other member of the public is that the raptor worker will have a Schedule 1 Disturbance Licence, issued annually by SNH, permitting them to visit the nests of certain protected species. Possession of this licence indicates that the raptor fieldworker is suitably competent in minimising the disturbance effect of his/her visit on the raptor’s breeding attempt.

There’s a very good reason why many raptor fieldworkers don’t give prior notice of their intended visit, and it doesn’t take a genius to work out what that might be! Why do you think gamekeepers are demanding that they be given prior warning of a visit? Could it be so they can rush out and remove poisoned baits, dead birds, illegal traps? Bert suggests that the prior notice is to ‘minimise disturbance’ to the gamekeeper’s daily routine, such as ‘fox control’. What utter tosh! Other members of the public, such as hill walkers, cyclists, dog walkers etc, are not required to provide prior notice. Why should it be different for raptor fieldworkers? Could it be because raptor fieldworkers are more likely to be able to spot criminal activity, than say, a casual hill walker?

Bert goes on to urge his members to report anybody seen at a nest site to the police. This is actually a great piece of advice, because it will save the raptor fieldworker the trouble of making the call when he/she finds the poisoned bait, or dead raptor, or trampled chicks, or smashed eggs, or illegal trap during their site visit. The interesting part will be whether the police actually turn up to investigate!

Bert also talks about how raptor workers are licenced (the SNH-issued Disturbance Licence mentioned above) and how the system is ‘based on trust’ with ‘no built in accountability’. That’s also incorrect (where does he get his ‘facts’?). However, the interesting part in his article is where he calls for equality in terms of accountability for raptor fieldworkers and gamekeepers. We couldn’t agree more, Bert! The sooner that a licensing system for individual gamekeepers is introduced, the better!

Bert’s article on the SGA website here