Raptor Persecution: still a national disgrace

The following article has been published in the autumn edition of Wild Land News, the magazine of the Scottish Wild Lands Group (visit their website here). The magazine should be posted online in the near future and we’ll provide a link when it’s available. Congratulations to the SWLG’s magazine editor, Calum Brown, for providing a platform for this subject. UPDATE: Magazine now published online. Link here.

Raptor Persecution: Still A National Disgrace. By Bob McMillan.

Bob McMillan has had a lifelong interest in birds of prey. He retired as Assistant Chief Constable in Tayside Police in 1998 at which time he was the ‘lead officer’ on wildlife crime in Scotland on behalf of ACPOS. He represented Scottish Raptor Study Groups on PAW Scotland and the Raptor Priority Persecution Group until 2011. He now lives on Skye and runs the website www.skye-birds.com

My childhood in the 1950s had been spent in a rural village near Dunblane in south Perthshire surrounded by sporting estates. To see a Buzzard or a Kestrel was a rarity, let alone a Hen Harrier. An early interest in birds was cultivated by older friends, one of whom had found breeding Harriers on a moor on the nearby Cromlix estate. He subsequently studied and photographed the birds, much to the consternation of the local estate which eventually took out a civil action and interdicted him from the ground. Twice prosecuted for breach of interdict, the case remains unique amongst individuals who have put themselves on the line to protect birds of prey from the illegal actions of gamekeepers and sporting estates.

Eddie Blake from Dunblane died recently. Somewhat eccentric, he received little support for his actions from the ornithological establishment who shunned him. In 1952 Blake had recorded the first breeding record of Montagu’s Harrier in Scotland on Braco Moor. Though the pair returned the following year, the female was shot. There have only been five recorded breeding attempts in Scotland and the last of these was in 1955. Montagu’s Harriers might still be breeding in Scotland today were it not for persecution, but rarely merit a mention alongside formerly extinct species such as Osprey, Red Kite and White-tailed Eagle.

When I joined the police service in 1963 my final interview was by the Chief Constable at Callander Police Station. Bedecked in tweeds and with two spaniels at his heels, George Glendinning was every inch the country squire. Any discussion about Blake’s interdict was strictly off limits but I later learned that Glendinning was a regular shooting guest on Cromlix estate. The influence of landowners on local policing was profound in the 1960/70s and vestiges of it remain today. Rural police officers had access to free fishing and shooting, which invariably meant an immediate response to suspected poachers, or for that matter, to ‘suspicious trespassers’ who were simply enjoying their Scottish right to roam. Many gamekeepers were Special Constables. Rural shoots in Perthshire would have been unsustainable had it not been for the many police officers who acted as ‘beaters’ at pheasant shoots on their days off. Though trained and aware of wildlife crime, such cultural influences would make them strongly anti-poaching, and more likely than not to turn a blind eye if an occasional Sparrowhawk was accidentally ‘taken out’ during a Pheasant drive. The police response to reports of illegal trapping or poisoning of birds of prey, up until the end of the 1980s, was likely to be ambivalent. Some raptor enthusiasts would argue it remains fairly unpredictable to this day.

Despite most raptors having legal protection since 1954, persecution by gamekeepers and those with sporting interests in grouse moors and lowland estates remains a major problem. In 1998 Scottish Raptor Study Groups carried out an assessment of the extent of the illegal killing of raptors in Scotland. Published by the Scottish Office, it was launched at the Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Fair at Kinross, where the late Donald Dewar, then Secretary of State for Scotland, expounded the view that persecution of birds of prey was a national disgrace. As a retiring Assistant Chief Constable in Tayside Police, who took the lead on wildlife crime in Scotland, my last public duty was to meet Donald Dewar at the event. In the context of the persecution of raptors, this was a major political statement, and the expression “a national disgrace” was used by many others subsequently. The reality was that the expression had been conjured up by a senior civil servant and Donald Dewar posed the question as to whether he could actually say it. The fact that he decided to say it represented a major politicisation of the issue, though not necessarily a turning point.

Having found my first poisoned Golden Eagle at an eyrie in Perthshire 40 years ago these problems were not new to me, as was the case for other raptor enthusiasts. What was new, however, was that senior politicians and officials of agencies such as Scottish Natural Heritage were, for the first time, prepared to speak out against the problem. Raptor persecution was by no means rare, and the killing of adult birds and destruction of nests continued or even increased during the 1990s. Donald Dewar also said that the Government, and the soon to be Scottish Parliament, “will take all possible steps to eliminate persecution.” Fifteen years on from this statement, perhaps finally, some progress is being made.

The Partnership for Action on Wildlife Crime (PAW) brings together the Police, HM Revenue and Customs, and representatives of Government Departments and voluntary bodies with an interest in wildlife law enforcement. It provides a strategic overview of enforcement activity, considers and develops responses to strategic problems, and looks at issues of strategic concern. Its main objective is to support the networks of Police Wildlife Crime Officers (PWCO). As part of the overall UK-wide structure, PAW Scotland has existed for at least 20 years. Although it has been responsible for many preventive initiatives post-devolution, and despite Donald Dewar’s commitment, it lacked strategic support from a number of the key agencies.

Since the SNP administration came to power that has significantly changed, initially under the leadership of the then Minister for Environment Michael Russell and, since then, through subsequent ministers. A major turning point was the Borders Golden Eagle poisoning incident in 2007 which led to two parliamentary debates on Wildlife Crime and the police thematic inspection ‘Natural Justice’. This led to the publication in September 2008 of the Scottish Wildlife Crime Reduction Strategy which is being implemented through a PAW Scotland plenary and executive group, and a number of sub-groups.

The persecution of raptors had been a major factor in influencing this new strategic commitment, and although a Raptor Persecution Priority Group was established, it has been slow to make progress and is still to report. The pro-shooting lobby has been extremely influential within PAW Scotland and within this group. In terms of the protection of raptors, much of this has muddied the waters and not been particularly constructive. Whilst it is important to have a partnership approach to deal with these problems, some question whether it is appropriate that the perpetrators, in the main gamekeepers and the sporting estates which condone these crimes, should be part of it. (More details of the work of PAW Scotland can be found at http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Environment/Wildlife-Habitats/paw-scotland/).

The accurate recording of wildlife crime incidents involving raptors is a major challenge and most will be aware that the RSPB in Scotland produce an annual report. Annual maps of incidents (‘maps of shame’) can also be found on the website above. A major challenge is to make sure that all wildlife crime incidents are reported to the police, preferably to Wildlife Crime Officers who are known locally. It is equally important to make sure that RSPB Investigations staff are also aware of any incidents reported to the police. Wildlife crimes such as suspected shooting or poisoning of birds, destruction of nests or eggs, or reckless disturbance should be reported at the time and without delay. The remains of dead birds of prey, irrespective of age or condition, may be important evidence and require forensic examination. Advice on what to do if you find a suspected incident is available on the PAW Scotland website.

Recently-published research showed that illegal persecution remained particularly prevalent on grouse moors, and for raptor workers and those who visit wild land this is perhaps nothing new. The recent recovery of a poisoned Golden Eagle in Morar and a shot White-tailed Eagle on Skye confirms that birds are at risk throughout the Highlands, not just on sporting estates. Some local populations face the prospect of significant decline unless action is taken. In areas of Scotland such as the Black Isle the re-establishment of the Red Kite continues to be jeopardised by illegal persecution, and each year brings further reports of the destruction of Hen Harriers and Peregrines.

Satellite telemetry is now being used extensively on several species of birds of prey, primarily intended to trace the movements of young birds to gather information which assists their long-term conservation. An unintended outcome from this new science is that when signals indicate a bird has stopped moving, follow-ups have established that birds have been trapped, shot and poisoned. Without satellite telemetry these crimes would never be known about. The Golden Eagle ‘Alma’, poisoned in 2009, is one such example. Unfortunately a significant number of recent persecution casualties involving our large raptors have been found in this way, supporting the argument that reported incidents represent the tip of the iceberg.

The ‘Natural Justice’ thematic inspection recommended dedicated Wildlife Crime Officers in every force. The reality is there are now fewer WCOs than existed when the inspection was carried out. Strathclyde, the largest force in Scotland, have had no full-time post for some years. With a single national police force just months away there is little evidence that there is any genuine commitment on the part of the police service to meet many of the earlier recommendations. Whilst we can work in partnership, increase awareness, improve legislation and ensure landowners and employers accept vicarious responsibility, we can achieve nothing without a properly trained and professional police service which can rise to the challenge. Regrettably, the number of successful prosecutions remains extremely low, and there is a need to ensure that, in terms of enforcement and investigation, the limited resources dedicated to this field of work are properly supported so that much of the political and public relations rhetoric can be converted into tangible results.

I was part of a delegation from Scottish Raptor Study Groups which met Roseanna Cunningham when she was Minister for Environment in November 2010, and we recommended that a dedicated investigative unit be established, comprising trained WCOs and specialists from the RSPB, SSPCA and SNH, with a remit to cover the whole of Scotland, untrammelled by force boundaries. Many will argue, politicians amongst them, that only a few rogue estates and gamekeepers are involved, but any review of the so-called ‘maps of shame’ and the RSPB maps which preceded them, would find that hundreds of estates have been involved in incidents during the last ten years. Uniquely, there are also several estates with histories of persecution going back 30 years. As long as the police have responsibility to investigate such crimes, there is a need for them to develop a cutting edge and target the perpetrators. There would never be a better time to establish a specialist unit than now.

Some fifty years on from my childhood days in south Perthshire I will certainly be able to see Buzzards, Kestrels, Sparrowhawks and even Red Kites when I visit. Unfortunately Hen Harriers remain absent from the moors of Cromlix and Braco. Golden Eagles show little sign of expanding their range, and there is a real risk that fifteen years on from the branding of the problem ‘a national disgrace’, the fate of some of the iconic species which occupy our wild land remains in the balance.

Evil feathered babysnatchers poised to take over Scotland

The Modern Poisoners’ Society has reacted angrily to the news that sea eagles are set to breed in urbanised East Scotland.

Their outburst was prompted by an article in yesterday’s Scotsman that reported on the latest phase of the East Coast Sea Eagle Reintroduction Project (see here).

Albert Hogburn, Director of the Twat Unit in the Modern Poisoners’ Soc said: “First it was the west coast, now it’s the east coast, what next, are we going to see eagles in Southern Scotland, too? It’s outrageous! We’re going to be the laughing stock of Europe if we’re not careful and what would that do to our fragile economy? Nobody’s going to visit Scotland if we’ve got these evil feathered babysnatchers lurking on top of every doctor’s surgery, sharpening their talons on the roof tiles ready to pounce.

But don’t you worry. Obviously we’ll continue to use poison out in the countryside, because that’s our bread and butter, but we’ve got to have a different strategy for use in urban areas. I’ve had my twats working 24/7 on a new trap design – forget the Clam Trap, we’ll soon be unveiling the Pram Trap, just as soon as our government funding comes through. It’ll be better than the Clam Trap because you can’t really use those in the High Street, whereas the Pram Trap, which works by attaching nooses to the pram’s hood so that when the babysnatcher comes down for the kill its feet will get tangled up, can be rolled out across towns and cities in full public view. We’re also working on a partnership with one of the supermarkets to offer 10% discount to all customers who come in with a dead babysnatcher. The promotion booth will probably be positioned next to the lottery stand at the front of the store. People will feel lucky if they’ve managed to kill a babysnatcher, so lottery ticket sales should increase ten-fold. It’ll be win-win. How bloody fantastic is that?”.

Donald Spewing-Moore from the Royal Bird Protection Society said: “I thought they were up to something. I saw them last week huddled up inside a grouse butt, deep in conversation and guarded by 40 armed naked virgins. I shouted, ‘Oi, Twats, what you doing?’ but they didn’t hear”.

Clap Trap

SNH is seeking input as it prepares to make changes to the 2013 General Licences.

This is a welcome move. The 2012 General Licences are not really fit for purpose, to say the least. We’ve blogged before about certain aspects of these licences, particularly those relating to the use of crow cage traps (see Crow traps: what you should know Part 1 here, Part 2 here, and Part 3 here) as well as clam traps (see here and here).

However, when you have a look at the consultation letter put out by SNH (see here) you’ll notice that they’ve carefully avoided many of the most concerning issues.

To better understand some of these issues, please read Crow Traps: What you should know Part 2 (here is the link again). These issues include (but are not limited to) compliance (or not) with European environmental legislation; welfare concerns; poor trap design that allows indiscriminate species trapping; year-round use (as opposed to seasonal use); ineffective regulation of crow trap users; ineffective monitoring of crow trap use (i.e. number and species caught/killed); inability to identify an individual trap user; and a lovely get-out clause for any General Licence user with an unspent criminal conviction.

The highly contentious issue of the ‘clam trap’ (also known as ‘Larsen mate trap’, ‘snapper trap’ and ‘butterfly trap’) has been raised in this consultation, although SNH’s plans for how to deal with it are astonishing. They recognise that welfare concerns remain about the use of these traps, but instead of banning them until independent research shows they are safe to use, they’ve decided to continue their use and commission research on their use “shortly”. They do suggest that they’ll require clam trap users to notify them of intended use, but really, what’s the point of that, other than being able to identify users as potential participants in their future ‘evidence gathering’ exercise?

When you consider the high level of training and accreditation required by those who want to trap wild birds for scientific research (i.e. bird ringing) and compare this with the very low standards required for those who want to trap wild birds to kill them (sorry, ‘control them for conservation purposes’), you realise what a joke the current system is.

The consultation is open until 9th November 2012. You can fill in the form (here is the link again), or, if you think that there are important issues that haven’t been addressed on the consultation form, why not write directly to SNH and explain your concerns? Email your comments to Robbie Kernahan, Head of Wildlife Operations, SNH: licensing@snh.gov.uk

SNH plan to publish a revised suite of General Licences for 2013 by early December.

Update on ‘missing’ or dead satellite-tagged raptors: golden eagle, Grampian

Let’s start with the sat-tagged golden eagle that was found dead, with two broken legs, in a lay-by in Aboyne in May. This is the eagle whose death was not reported until four months after it was found dead (see here). The evidence suggests this bird was caught in a trap on a grouse moor near to Brechin, Angus and was moved, while still alive, in the middle of the night and dumped in a lay-by in Aberdeenshire and left to die.

This incident prompted widespread outrage and the new Environment Minister, Paul Wheelhouse MSP, was apparently inundated with letters of complaint. Most people who wrote have now received a response, probably all similar to this one (see here). The Minister’s response provoked almost as much fury as the actual death of this eagle, and particularly the second paragraph:

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”.

We have since received unverified information (but from several independent sources) that the police have accepted the veterinary evidence that showed this eagle was indeed caught in a trap. We also understand that this veterinary evidence has been passed to the SGA and that apparently they are not disputing the findings (although they have yet to make a public statement – we wait with interest to hear about the findings of their own ‘inquiry’ (see here).

Why then did the Environment Minister’s response suggest that this eagle’s death was not neccessarily linked to a criminal offence? What possible “alternative explanation” is there to account for the death of this eagle? We’d like to hear it, and we’d also like to see details of the veterinary report. If these details can be released to the SGA then they should be released into the public domain for everyone to see. Send your email request to: ministerforenvironment@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

North Yorks gamekeeper arrested over alleged misuse of bird trap

A news article in today’s York Press reports that an un-named gamekeeper has been arrested over the alleged illegal use of cage traps.

North Yorks Police said a live buzzard was found caught inside a trap, which apparently was inside a pheasant pen (?!) in the Pickering area. The buzzard was released unharmed, and a second trap containing a live pigeon was found nearby.

The article can be read here. There’s no mention of who the gamekeeper is, nor the name of the estate/farm/land which was searched under a police warrant. There’s also no information about when these alleged incidents took place. No information is available on the North Yorks police website either.

A statement attributed to investigating police officer PC Stewart Ashton appears in the newspaper article:

Police are receiving a growing amount of evidence that raptors are being routinely shot, trapped and poisoned by gamekeepers throughout the Ryedale area. This is just the latest incident in what appears to be a persistent breaking of the law by a significant number of gamekeepers. This is a hidden crime which usually goes unreported. Sadly, what we are seeing is just the tip of a very big iceberg“.

An earlier blog entry from March 2012 about a poisoned red kite found in this area can be read here. Again the story was published in the York Press but precious few details were released.

In May 2011, a gamekeeper from Ryedale was convicted of shooting a badger. David Stephen Welford pleaded guilty at Scarborough Magistrates Court and was fined £385 and ordered to pay £100 court costs. York Press news article here.

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.