Tag: trap

Misleading guff from Scottish Land and Estates

scotsman_logo_200The following letter has appeared in The Scotsman in the continuing ‘debate’ on grouse moor management (see here to read the earlier articles).

“Logan Steele’s letter (14 Jan) which alleges that driven grouse shooting is only viable with the persecution of birds of prey, particularly the hen harrier, is misleading.

First, official statistics demonstrate a clear decline in the number of incidents of raptor persecution.

Second land management for driven grouse shooting delivers a huge benefit for other protected wildlife, especially waders, and sustains employment and communities in remote rural areas. This is something the suggested alternative of walked-up grouse-shooting would not do.

Of particular significance is clear evidence that where grouse and hen habitat and vermin management have declined in some hen harrier “special protection areas”, this has actually resulted in lower harrier populations, as well as declines in other species such as waders.

This is a more complex situation than some make out.

The Langholm Moor Demonstration Project, set up in partnership with the government to bring back driven grouse shooting in the presence of sustainable numbers of hen harriers, is where the best hopes of progress on this issue lie.

Results at Langholm so far are that neither harriers nor grouse have recovered – not what anyone expected, but each year scientific understanding improves and practical solution gets closer.

Making progress will involve compromise on all sides.

Organisations representing grouse moor managers such as SLE are fully behind this process and it is unfortunate that RSPB has pulled out of the mediation process in England. Perhaps Scotland provides the best opportunity to make progress now.  Douglas McAdam, Scottish Land & Estates, Musselburgh”

[Link to the letter here].

And he accuses Logan Steele’s letter as being misleading!

First, which “official statistics demonstrate a clear decline in the number of incidents of raptor persecution” is Doug McAdam referring to? The ones we know of only relate to known poisoning incidents, although they are limited to poisoned birds; they do not include the discovery of poisoned baits and nor do they include suspected poisoning incidents or unreported poisoning incidents. More to the point, they do not relate to other types of raptor persecution, such as shooting, trapping, nest destruction, ‘disappearing’ birds etc. The only statistics that account for all types of raptor persecution incidents are those compiled annually by the RSPB; statistics that have never been accepted by SLE or any other game-shooting organisation.

Second, McAdam says “land management for driven grouse shooting delivers a huge benefit for other protected wildlife, especially waders, and sustains employment and communities in remote rural areas“. Another misleading statement. Land managed for driven grouse shooting is not only bad for protected wildlife (golden eagles, white-tailed eagles, hen harriers, goshawks, red kites, buzzards, peregrines, ravens, pine martens, mountain hares etc etc) but it is catastrophic for other species too (foxes, weasels, stoats, crows etc etc). And that’s without even touching on the landscape-level environmental damage.

McAdam goes on to suggest that “making progress will involve compromise on all sides“. No it won’t. Making progress will depend entirely on whether the grouse-shooting industry will accept that they have to work within the law and put an end to illegal persecution. If they do, all well and good. If they won’t, then they face a direct action campaign to ban driven grouse shooting by those of us who are sick of waiting for the government to act on our behalf. Hollow promises just don’t wash anymore. Time’s up.

McAdam’s penultimate sentence is laughable. He’s trying to suggest that the RSPB are the unreasonable ones in this 20+ year saga, for walking away from the six-year long Hen Harrier Dialogue process (see here). They are definitely not the unreasonable ones – they recognised a sham process and got out. Until SLE start to publicly expel their member estates where raptor persecution is rife (and we all know who they are, and so should McAdam – if he doesn’t, he’s in the wrong job), then the credibility of SLE’s involvement in ‘making progress’ will be viewed with as much contempt as it deserves.

Here comes 2013….the year of natural scotland

imagesHappy Hogmanay!

Tomorrow marks the start of another Scottish government themed year: The Year of Natural Scotland, in which we’re encouraged to celebrate Scotland’s stunning natural beauty and biodiversity. Good job it wasn’t this year’s theme as there might have been some red faces in the government:

  • SGA gamekeeper Whitefield sentenced for poisoning four buzzards (he already had an earlier wildlife crime conviction). His sentence this time? 100 hours community service.
  • Scottish gamekeeper McLachlan, convicted for possession of the banned poison Carbofuran. Fined £635.
  • Scottish gamekeeper Barrie lost an appeal for his sentence of £520 for illegal possession and control of a wild bird.
  • COPFS choosing not to prosecute a Scottish gamekeeper who had been filmed beating birds to death with a stick inside a crow cage trap.
  • Scottish gamekeeper Christie convicted for wildlife crimes relating to the illegal use of a crow cage trap. His sentence? An admonishment (a telling off).
  • Scottish gamekeeper Graham convicted for allowing a buzzard to starve to death inside a crow cage trap. Fined £450.
  • Scottish gamekeeper McKellar convicted for possession of banned poison. Fined £1,200.
  • Scottish gamekeeper Scobie convicted for using banned poison. Fined £270.
  • A satellite-tagged golden eagle mysteriously ‘disappeared’ in the Angus glens.
  • A satellite-tagged golden eagle mysteriously ‘disappeared’ to the North East of the Cairngorms National Park.
  • Peregrine chicks mysteriously ‘disappeared’ from a nest site in Dumfries & Galloway.
  • A golden eagle was found dead, poisoned in Lochaber.
  • A golden eagle was found dead in suspicious circumstances on the Isle of Harris. Still awaiting results.
  • A satellite-tagged golden eagle mysteriously ‘disappeared’ in the Monadhliaths.
  • A poisoned raven, crow, and three poisoned baits were found in the Borders.
  • A satellite-tagged golden eagle was found dead near a lay-by in Aberdeenshire. Its injuries and its sat tag data suggested it had been illegally trapped on an Angus grouse moor and then dumped during the night and left to die.
  • A golden eagle was found shot and critically injured on a grouse moor in Dumfries & Galloway.
  • Barry, the sat-tagged hen harrier from Langholm mysteriously ‘disappeared’.
  • Buzz, the sat-tagged buzzard mysteriously ‘disappeared’ in the Angus glens. (More on this case in the New Year).
  • Willow, a sat-tagged marsh harrier mysteriously ‘disappeared’ in Galloway.
  • A hen harrier was found shot dead on an Aberdeenshire grouse moor.

These are just a few of the ‘highlights’ from Scotland this year – there are a few more that we can’t yet report but we will in the New Year. And of course this list doesn’t include other confirmed incidents from other parts of these fair isles such as England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic; a list that includes shot and poisoned sea eagles, buzzards, kites, harriers, peregrines and sparrowhawks. Nor does it include the incidents that went undiscovered.

We’ll be blogging quite a lot about the Year of Natural Scotland, which hopefully won’t be just a banner-waving exercise by the government but an opportunity for them to put their money where their mouths are. You don’t think so? No, neither do we. Why should 2013 be any different from the previous three decades of ineffective action?

A hint of what’s to come is the revelation that the theme will be highlighted during several events throughout the year. Two particular locations caught our attention: the Scone Game Fair and the Moy Game Fair.

The Scone Game Fair is of course organised by the GWCT. That’s the same GWCT that has recently asked for the addition of buzzards and sparrowhawks to the General Licences (that means they want permission to kill them…we’ll be blogging about that shortly). It’s also the same Game Fair that has previously attracted sponsorship from some very, how shall we put it, ‘surprising’ sources.

The Moy Game Fair is held on the Moy Estate near Inverness. If you’re unaware of this place, try googling it.

Thanks for all your interest and support in 2012…we’ll see you soon. Sláinte!

This golden eagle was found shot, critically injured &left to die on a Scottish grouse moor. Photo SSPCA
This golden eagle was found shot, critically injured and left to die on a Scottish grouse moor. Photo SSPCA

Row escalates over SNH’s decision to authorise clam traps

The controversial clam trapEarlier in December we blogged about SNH’s decision to authorise the use of clam-type traps under the 2013 General Licences, despite the concerns of a number of organisations that these traps are likely to cause injury to non-target species, especially raptors (see here).

This story has now been picked up by the BBC (see here). According to this article, at least two organisations (SSPCA and RSPB) have called on SNH to reconsider its decision on clam traps. Judging by the comment attributed to SNH’s Licensing Manager, Ben Ross, a U-turn looks unlikely:

“We will commission objective research on these traps; if the research shows they pose unacceptable risks, we will then prohibit them“.

Surely this is the wrong way around? You do the research to assess their suitability BEFORE you decide to approve their use, not afterwards!

But that’s not the end of the story. When we first blogged about SNH’s decision to approve these traps, we also raised concerns that SNH had appeared to ignore the recommendations made to them by all groups except those with an interest in game-shooting (blog article here). We asked blog readers to contact SNH and ask to see ALL the consultation responses they’d received, so that we could assess which groups’ recommendations had been accepted and which had been ignored. This was a successful tactic – in a letter to consultees yesterday, SNH wrote this:

“Following our response letter to the consultation we received a number of information requests for us to publish all responses that we received to the consultation. This email is to let you know that we are legally obliged to provide this information and as such will be publishing it on our website either later today or tomorrow……..As we have received a number of requests for the information, we will make the responses available on our website“.

So well done and thank you to those of you who made the effort to send an email request to SNH. We look forward to seeing the consultation responses published on the SNH website later today.

Let’s also not forget that the written answers are due tomorrow in response to MSP Claire Baker’s parliamentary questions about the use of these clam-type traps (see here).

RSPB walks out of hen harrier ‘dialogue’

tec_logo_16271This isn’t especially new news, as it happened in the summer, but we were reminded of it today after reading something on Mark Avery’s blog – more on that later – and it does seem pertinent to blog about it now.

So, most readers will be aware of the Environment Council’s ‘Hen Harrier Dialogue’ – a process that started in 2006 that aimed to bring ‘stakeholders’ together to try and work out a way of resolving the hen harrier / grouse moor conflict in England (see here for website). Those stakeholders involved in these dialogue meetings included the usual suspects such as BASC, Countryside Alliance, Country Land and Business Association, GWCT, Moorland Association, National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, RSPB, Hawk & Owl Trust, Northern England Raptor Groups etc.

The ‘dialogue’ process has produced an awful lot of documents (and a lot of awful documents, see here) and meeting reports (see here), and a strong interest in pursuing a trial on a ‘quota system’ for hen harriers – a controversial idea spawned by Steve Redpath several years ago. In simplistic terms, this quota system would mean that grouse moor owners would ‘allow’ a certain number of breeding pairs (number yet to be established) and once a ‘ceiling’ had been reached, then they would be ‘allowed’ to remove harrier broods (non-lethally) to other parts of the UK away from grouse moors. This idea is still being discussed, although it brings with it obvious ethical and legal debates.

Hen harrier being removed from illegal trap on Moy EstateSome argue that conservation groups shouldn’t be sitting at the table with representatives from an industry that has been responsible for killing off England’s breeding hen harrier population. Others argue that the quota scheme may be the best way forward because at least there’d be some harriers, which is a better proposition than having none. Others have suggested that the quota system would never get off the ground anyway because the grouse moor owners would have to ‘allow’ a certain number of breeding hen harriers on their estates and they’ve shown themselves incapable of tolerating any.

Whatever your point of view, the bottom line is that six years on from the start of the dialogue process, and after all that talking over egg sandwiches and coffee, the English hen harrier breeding population has been reduced to one known pair. That’s it. Just the one pair. In a country that has suitable habitat to support over 300 breeding pairs.

This summer, the RSPB made a bold move and decided to walk away from the dialogue process. They said that as hen harriers have been systematically eradicated from English grouse moors then there was no longer any conflict and therefore no point in spending any more time talking about it. Instead, they intended to get on with their own plans for hen harrier recovery.

It’s not yet known what will happen to the Environment Council dialogue process now a major player has walked away. As far as we’re aware, there are still many questions about the lawfulness of the proposed trial quota scheme so it’s unclear whether attempts will still be made to push that through.

So what next for English hen harriers? After the recent sad story of the illegal shooting of Bowland Betty (see here), in addition to all the other horror stories we keep reading about from English and Scottish grouse moors (e.g. see here, here, here, here, here), is it time for a different approach? It’s obvious that the authorities can’t, or won’t deal with illegal persecution, and the grouse-shooting industry can’t, or won’t put a stop to it either. An alternative suggestion has been put forward by Mark Avery – unless things miraculously improve for breeding hen harriers in Northern England in 2013 then it will be time to start the campaign, on 12 August 2013, to end grouse shooting (see here for Mark’s blog).

Up until now we’d been supporters of the idea of estate-licensing schemes rather than an outright ban. Licensing seemed a fair and reasonable approach to regulate an industry so clearly incapable of expelling its criminal elements. But now?  The time for being reasonable has long since passed. Count us in, Mark.

For our anagram fans: Grouse moor – morgue or so

Parliamentary questions asked about SNH’s decision on clam traps

Claire Baker MSPFollowing on from earlier blog posts about SNH’s latest baffling decision to authorise the use of clam-type traps in the 2013 General Licences (see here), a well-informed MSP has now asked the following excellent parliamentary questions:

Claire Baker (Scottish Labour, Mid-Scotland and Fife), Date lodged 7/12/2012

Question S4W-11729 To ask the Scottish Government what independent testing has been carried out to evaluate the risk of injury to birds and other animals from (a) Larsen Mate and (b) Elgeeco cage traps.
 
Question S4W-11730 To ask the Scottish Government what independent testing has been carried out to evaluate the impact of (a) Larsen Mate and (b) Elgeeco cage traps on (i) protected species and (ii) species not targeted by the devices.
 
Question S4W-11731 To ask the Scottish Government what provision must be made for (a) food, (b) water and (c) shelter for (i) birds and (ii) other animals caught by a (A) Larsen Mate and (B) Elgeeco cage trap before a general licence for its use can be granted.
 
Question S4W-11732 To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on issuing general licences for untested cage traps.
 
Question S4W-11733 To ask the Scottish Government whether independent evidence establishing a need to supplement a trap with a (a) Larsen Mate and (b) Elgeeco cage trap is required before a general licence for its use can be granted.

Expected answer date: 21/12/2012

Those answers should make for interesting reading. Well done Claire Baker MSP.

Meanwhile, we’re still waiting for SNH to publish ALL the responses they received on their 2013 General Licence consultation. They told us last Thursday that they were “currently preparing the information for publication” (see here).

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.