Press release from North Yorkshire Police (30 June 2023):
MAN SENTENCED AFTER DEATH OF BARN OWL NEAR SCARBOROUGH
A man has been sentenced after the death of an owl that was trapped on an allotment plot in Hunmanby.
On 8 April 2023, a dog walker discovered a badly-injured adult Barn Owl caught in a spring-operated trap in the allotments at Sands Lane, Hunmanby. Despite the bird being rescued and taken to a vet, the injuries to its legs were so severe that it had to be euthanized.
When spoken to by police, the tenant of the plot, Leslie Shooter, 57, stated that he had set a number of traps to control rats. However, he had not covered the traps as required by law, resulting in the trapping of the bird.
Barn Owls are particularly susceptible to disturbance and human interference. They are listed under Schedule 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, giving them legal protection. The species is also an early breeder, with a typical season being March to September, so any issues affecting adult breeding birds during this time brings additional risks to dependant eggs and young.
Spring-operated traps, often referred to as ‘Fenn’ traps, can be legally operated in the UK, but their use and target species is strictly controlled by legislation. Potential offences include use whilst uncovered, neglect in checking and use to capture wild birds.
Following an investigation by North Yorkshire Police, Shooter was charged with using an animal trap in circumstances for which it is not approved, causing a trap to be set to cause injury to a wild bird and causing unnecessary suffering to a protected animal.
After pleading guilty at Scarborough Magistrates Court on 29 June 2023, Shooter was sentenced to a community order with 100 hours’ unpaid work requirement, as well as £199 of costs and surcharges.
PC Graham Bilton, Wildlife Crime Officer for North Yorkshire Police, who investigated the incident alongside the RSPCA, said: “Raptor persecution is a national wildlife priority but unfortunately despite the legal protection offered to these birds it continues to be a problem throughout the UK.
“The incident in question, which resulted in the tragic death of the barn owl, could have been avoided had the defendant used the traps in a responsible and lawful way.”
Geoff Edmond, RSPCA Inspectorate Wildlife Lead, said: “This has been a very distressing incident and I would like to thank the member of the public who took this Barn Owl to the vet even though sadly – due to its horrific injuries – it could not be saved.
“I believe this incident will have caused upset and concern for the community of Hunmanby, many of whom will have enjoyed watching this Barn Owl.
“By correct training in and knowledge of the use of this trap, this death should not have occurred. I would urge anyone using traps to ensure they are fully conversant with the legislation surrounding them.
“I am grateful that the RSPCA continues to work in partnership with North Yorkshire Police to tackle wildlife and rural crime.”
Mark Thomas, RSPB Head of Investigations, added: “Raptor persecution is a national issue, impacting on a range of threatened species including public favourites like the Barn Owl, which in this case was inexcusably trapped in a heinous manner. Our thanks go to North Yorkshire Police for bringing this case to justice and highlighting the issue.”
Yesterday, gamekeeper Francis Addison was convicted for multiple offences linked to the discovery of five shot goshawks that were found in a public carpark next to King’s Forest near Thetford in January this year (see here).
The five shot goshawks. Photo: Suffolk Police
Addison lives in the village of Weeting in Norfolk.
Weeting also just happens to be where another gamekeeper, Matthew Stroud, was convicted in October 2022 for multiple wildlife crimes on land he managed for pheasant shooting at Fengate Farm, including the killing of six buzzards and a goshawk and the laying of poisoned baits (see here and here).
Weeting is a small village. There are a few farms there, according to Google maps, some or all of which could be hosting pheasant shooting, but I was curious about whether Addison and Stroud were associated with the same pheasant shoot at Fengate Farm.
So I asked Suffolk Police this morning:
Interesting.
Fengate Farm is owned by Richard Norman Parrott, who also happens to be a director of Weeting Steam Engine Rally Ltd, according to Companies House (here).
The Weeting Steam Rally and Country Show is scheduled to take place at Fengate Farm on 14-16th July 2023 – see the rally website here – where overnight camping is offered (here) and the rally is described on the website as follows:
‘A fun family day out filled with nostalgia of steam. We have plenty for all the family to enjoy, from the large range of steam engines to the fairground, gundogs to chainsaw carving, there’s something for everyone, whatever your age – across our 170 acre site! Our large trade area has a vast array of stalls, we also have a craft tent and a food hall, along with many other things to see and do‘.
Now, I’m not suggesting for one minute that Mr Parrott had any involvement with, or knowledge of, the criminality associated with the Fengate Farm pheasant shoot. For all I know, he leases out the land used for the shoot and has nothing to do with it (it’s worth noting that criminal gamekeeper Stroud was described as ‘self-employed’ and criminal gamekeeper Addison has been described as being ‘part-time’ and ‘retired’ – there is no indication that either were employed by Mr Parrott).
But given the discovery of poisoned baits and poisoned birds of prey, shot birds of prey, unsecured poisons, the illegal use of animal traps, and the unlawful use and storage of shotguns associated with this pheasant shoot, I’d suggest that visitors to the steam rally and country show might want to consider the risks to their health and safety and that of their children and dogs.
Further to the criminal conviction yesterday of gamekeeper Francis Addison from Weeting, near Thetford in relation to the discovery of five shot goshawks in January this year (see here), there was excellent coverage on BBC’s Look East yesterday evening.
It’s available on iPlayer (here, starts 05.53 mins) but only until this evening, so here is a transcript of the two-minute piece:
A part-time gamekeeper who admitted dumping dead birds of prey in a parking area in Suffolk has been given a suspended prison sentence.
The five goshawk carcasses were found in January. Francis Addison who’s 72 and from Weeting, near Thetford, denied shooting them. Our Environment reporter Richard Daniels sent this report from Norwich Magistrates Court.
It was a shocking discovery. Five goshawks dumped in a public area near Wordwell in Suffolk. All had been shot. When police swabbed them for DNA it led them to the home of Francis Addison, an ex-military weapons instructor and part-time gamekeeper.
Today, Addison arrived at court facing 19 charges, including possession of the goshawks and various firearms offences.
Francis Addison arriving at court. Screen grab from BBC Look East
Addison’s defence told magistrates he found the five goshawk carcasses while out walking his dog. He put them in a bag and took them home. [Ed: according to this BBC article, Addison claimed he was intending to give them to the BTO]. But when a friend told him that it was illegal to have them, he took fright and returned them to the spot where he found them.
Once driven to extinction through persecution, goshawks are some of our most protected birds. The court was told there were believed to be as few as 33 living in Suffolk.
[Tom Grose, RSPB Investigations Officer]: “It’s illegal to possess these birds. However, we still don’t know who killed these goshawk and there is a reward available, still, for anybody that comes forward with information leading to the conviction of somebody for that offence”.
When the police searched Addison’s home they found his gun cabinet unlocked with ammunition stored in cupboards and in his car.
Screen grab from BBC Look East
[Sgt Brian Calver, Suffolk Police]: “If the house got burgled then they had access to a rifle, four shotguns, all the ammunition in the world. Gun ownership is a privilege, not a right, that’s one of the conditions on everyone’s licence to make sure that you keep those guns as secure as possible at all times”.
Addison was given a 12-week suspended prison sentence. He was told he’d shown a total disregard and disdain towards his licensing requirements. His firearm and shotgun certificates have been revoked.
Richard Daniel, BBC Look East, Norwich Magistrates Court.
ENDS
I’m so pleased to learn that Addison ‘found’ the five shot goshawks on his dog walk and that their deaths had nothing whatsoever to do with his cage traps, dead woodpigeon and guns. Phew! Seems he’s just an unlucky chap, not a raptor-killing bastard.
UPDATE 30th June 2023: Criminal gamekeepers Addison & Stroud both linked to Fengate Farm in Weeting, Norfolk (here)
The Scottish Government has finally published its response to the recommendations made in its commissioned review of increasing investigatory powers for the Scottish SPCA to help tackle wildlife crime, including raptor persecution. It’s good news!
Here’s the Government statement:
Scottish Government Response to Taskforce Report on SSPCA Powers
In response to the independent Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA) Taskforce report, the Scottish Government is proposing to bring forward provisions to allow for a limited extension of the Scottish SPCA’s current powers to investigate wildlife crime.
We are grateful to the SSPCA Taskforce for conducting the review and producing their final report and we agree with the recommendation that further partnership working between the SSPCA and Police Scotland should be taken forward. Having considered the report in detail, we also propose that further limited powers for SSPCA inspectors should be provided.
Our proposal is to provide SSPCA inspectors with additional powers to search, examine and seize evidence in connection with specified wildlife crime offences under Part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and certain offences in the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill 2023. These powers would only be given to an inspector appointed under section 49(2)(a) of the Animal Health and Welfare (Scotland) Act 2006 and each inspector would be separately and individually authorised by the Scottish Government in connection with the new powers. All inspectors would be required to undertake specified training prior to being given authorisation to exercise the new powers. Authorisations could be withdrawn at the discretion of the Scottish Government.
In addition to the additional training requirements, protocols will be established between the SSPCA and Police Scotland to ensure effective partnership working and that Police Scotland have primacy over cases and offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill 2023.
It is intended that an important limitation would be placed on the exercise of these powers, namely that the additional powers could only be exercised when an inspector is already responding to a case using their existing powers under the 2006 Act.
This has been a long-running issue and we believe that the approach we are proposing represents a balanced compromise. It will allow SSPCA inspectors who are already on the spot, investigating potential animal welfare offences under their existing powers, to seize and secure evidence of related wildlife crimes without delay and potential loss of that evidence. The proposal would not however lead to SSPCA becoming an alternative wildlife crime enforcement agency. Police Scotland would retain primacy as the enforcement body for all wildlife crime and the public should continue to report those crimes to Police Scotland.
Following further consultation with stakeholders the proposed changes will be brought forward as an amendment at Stage 2 of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill 2023. The Bill is currently before the Parliament and we welcome more evidence on this being provided at Stage 1.
ENDS
This is a surprisingly good outcome, given where we were the last time the Government made a decision on the issue back in May 2017, when increased investigatory powers were ‘ruled out’, apparently ‘on legal advice’ (see here).
I don’t know what that ‘legal advice’ was in 2017 – my own view is that this was just a convenient excuse at the time, because the law hasn’t changed since then but now increased powers are suddenly possible? Hmm.
The proposed new powers are limited, yes, but they’re a good starting point.
Had these powers been in place previously then I dare say we might have seen a better outcome in a number of wildlife crime cases where the SSPCA were already on scene investigating alleged animal welfare offences but were not permitted to collect evidence of further wildlife crimes that were staring them in the face – e.g. the illegally-set spring traps on a grouse moor on the Invercauld Estate in the Cairngorms National Park (see here) and the carcasses of nine shot raptors found in bags in and around the grouse moors of Millden Estate in the Angus Glens (see here).
I’m not sure whether the Scottish Government is proposing yet another consultation on this issue (‘Following further consultation with stakeholders the proposed changes will be brought forward as an amendment at Stage 2 of the Wildlife Management and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill 2023‘) – surely to God we don’t need another bloody consultation – I’ve lost track of the number of consultations on this issue – we know where every organisation stands and none of them have changed their minds, or are likely to do so now. The general position is that the game shooting lobby don’t want the SSPCA to have increased investigatory powers (gosh, can’t think why) and the conservation organisations do want them to have increased powers.
Let’s see what happens between now and Stage 2 of the Wildlife and Muirburn (Scotland) Bill when the Government’s proposals will be debated. Stage 2 is expected to begin in the autumn.
For now, well done and thanks to everyone who has campaigned on this issue for the last 13 years, and thanks especially to Mark Ruskell MSP (Scottish Greens) who has championed the cause for many years.
This is not everything we wanted but nevertheless it’s a big win.
UPDATE 21.30hrs: Reaction to proposed new investigatory powers for Scottish SPCA to help tackle wildlife crime (here)
Guest blog written by conservation campaigner Bob Berzins, who has featured previously on this bloghere, here, here and here.
The UK countryside is littered with thousands of animal traps and high concentrations are found around grouse moors and pheasant & partridge shoots, not surprising given the huge numbers of birds bred on moors or introduced in lowlands which inevitably attract predators.
Traps can be described in two categories: those that restrain and those that kill. This blog will examine lethal spring traps to see if they match up to claims of an instant humane kill.
WARNING: Graphic images of animals killed in traps and descriptions of animal testing
There’s no doubt the UK has been slow to improve animal welfare standards around the use of traps. The Agreement on International Humane Trapping Standards (AIHTS) was brokered in 1997 and it took over 20 years for improved standards to be partially implemented in the UK (here and here).
AIHTS is about fur trapping which is a huge industry in Canada and Russia but in the UK the only “fur” animal that can be killed without special licence is the stoat. You might have noticed all the ermine on display at the recent coronation.
Until recently grouse moors often had hundreds of Fenn traps set on logs across streams as run through or “rail” traps or in single entrance tunnels. GWCT provides the following information:
“Fenn traps, and all copycat designs such as those by Springer and Solway, were made illegal to catch stoats from 1 April 2020, because tests have shown that they fail to kill stoats reliably within the time-frame required by AIHTS (45 seconds). It remains legal to use them to catch other target species for which they are currently approved (e.g. weasels, rats, grey squirrels), even though they have not undergone humaneness testing for those species (because of cost constraints). But the AIHTS does not apply to those other species, and Defra is implementing AIHTS by means of the least possible change.”
So the UK has done the absolute minimum to implement humane standards of lethal trapping for the full range of UK mammals. Data shows Fenn traps kill stoats inhumanely but Fenn traps are still acceptable to kill grey squirrels which can be almost twice the weight of a stoat. More on this below.
I don’t know the current prevalence of Fenn trap use across the UK as a whole but they’ve been almost completely removed from the grouse moors where I live because stoats are found in these areas. Surely this must have resulted in improved animal welfare?
What I’ve actually seen is after a slow initial implementation of new approved spring traps from April 2020, there’s been increasing evidence that animals are suffering in the new traps. So I submitted an FOI to Defra (Animal & Plant Health Authority APHA) for detailed information about how the humaneness of traps has been determined.
Stoat appears to escape from trap. Photo: Bob Berzins
This stoat appears to have tried to escape a head strike by the Tully trap or did the rear leg move by a death spasm or similar?
Data from laboratory tests on stoats and rats
The FOI revealed the AIHTS requirement is the trap induces irreversible removal of corneal and palpebral reflexes within 45 seconds (both these reflexes are tested by a stimulus to the eye). Removal of these reflexes indicates unconsciousness. APHA provided details of lethal tests on stoats and rats for DOC traps and tests on stoats for Tully traps. Overall the recorded time for cessation of heartbeat (death) ranged between 10 seconds and 7 minutes 35 seconds. So the humaneness standard is not for these traps to kill instantly but for these traps to induce unconsciousness within 45 seconds. This could provide plenty of time for the stoat above to try to escape from the trap.
When unconscious the brain is anything but silent
The rationale from APHA is that unconscious animals feel no pain so it doesn’t matter if an animal takes seven minutes to die – a trap is humane if the animal is unconscious within 45 seconds. We are not going to get any research or data on brain activity of unconscious animals and it’s important to note the brain of a stoat or rat is not as developed as a human brain. But it is worth considering what we know from human research, particularly that there are many levels of unconsciousness.
The NHS describes coma patients who can have awareness of what is happening around them and levels of unconsciousness can be measured using the Glasgow Coma Score (here). We don’t feel the pain of an operation when under general anaesthetic but anaesthetists aim to administer drugs to an optimal level, so we are neither too deeply nor too shallowly unconscious. And this paper (here) from the University of Basel shows synchronised activity of cells in the cerebral cortex (the part of the brain generally associated with consciousness) under general anaesthesia. All of this suggests unconsciousness has many factors and we simply don’t know under what circumstances an animal will feel pain.
APHA data showed successful laboratory tests on DOC traps always resulted in a strike to the head/neck and severe head trauma is most likely to result in rapid unconsciousness and death. But real life data shows a huge variation in which parts of the animal are crushed by these traps – that’s important because strikes away from the head introduce a lot of uncertainty about how long the animal remains alive, conscious and in pain.
Decomposed rat in the edge of a DOC trap – note the trap has not struck the head. Photo: Bob Berzins
Another rat also in the edge of a DOC trap which has struck the jaw and part of the chest. Photo: Bob Berzins
Successful and Unsuccessful laboratory tests
Sample sizes for DOC 150, Doc 200, Doc 250 and Tully trap were all aimed at achieving 10 successful tests. However a number of trap/configuration/species test failures were recorded as follows:
DOC 150 single entrance configuration (stoat) – one failure due to stoat being struck on the abdomen
DOC 150 single entrance configuration (rat) – one failure due to strike on the nose
DOC 200 single entrance configuration (stoat) – one failure due to unconsciousness not achieved within 45 seconds
DOC 250 configuration not specified (rat) – one failure due to strike on the nose
Tully Trap – one failure no details provided.
Taken as a whole these results are shocking because they show a failure rate of around 1 test in ten or 10%. This implies that 1 in 10 animals would not be killed humanely by these traps. Yet this is deemed acceptable by Defra and AIHTS.
In the real world the sample size now runs into thousands given the widespread use of these traps. Canadian researchers have calculated, given these test results on small samples, the real life probability of these traps being successful in a large population is 71% (here) which implies even more animals will die a painful inhumane death.
Tests using Tully traps recorded either head, neck, shoulder or chest strikes. The stoat in the photograph below was struck on the chest – a strike any further down the body would be regarded as a trap failure. Lab tests recorded stoats taking up to 3:04 minutes to die so it’s reasonable to question how much pain this animal suffered before dying?
Stoat in Tully trap strike on chest. Photo: Bob Berzins
Foul strikes
Police attended this trap and determined the (decomposed) stoat was caught by front paw only. This unfortunate animal must have suffered greatly before death:
A photo of the same trap before the stoat entered, showing the entrance/access holes. These details are discussed below. Photo: Bob Berzins
In practice this trap became a leghold trap which is illegal under the following legislation:
The Leghold Trap and Pelt Imports (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 implement a prohibition on the use of leghold traps in the UK,
Section 8 of the Pests Act 1954 prohibits the approval of any leghold trap, defined as “a device designed to restrain or capture an animal by means of jaws which close tightly upon one or more of the animal’s limbs, thereby preventing withdrawal of the limb or limbs from the trap” for use in England.
DEFRA also provided me with the following:
“For traps which may occasionally produce a foul strike and restrain or pin animals in their mechanism without providing a quick and irreversible unconsciousness, the Animal Welfare Act (2006) requires users of traps to ensure animals do not endure prolonged suffering. This should include regularly checking traps and euthanizing any animals which continue to suffer. An example of best practice guidance can be found at Pest Management Codes of Best Practice | pest control standards (bpca.org.uk).
Defra, by implementing the Spring Traps Approval (England) Order 2018 requires users to deploy traps in appropriate enclosures, and where specified follow the manufacturer’s instructions closely. As both enclosure design and mode of use help minimise the chance of a foul strike, this requirement in regulation helps ensure the humane management of wildlife.”
The trap above was set using 50mm mesh for the tunnel/enclosure which allows the target species to enter the trap from above or from the side. Manufacturer’s instructions only have a vague specification the tunnel must be “suitable for the purpose”. So it’s virtually impossible to prosecute a trap operator for a tunnel/enclosure like the one above. In addition there’s no statutory requirement to check spring traps. And to gain a prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act: it’s necessary to establish that the defendant knew or ought reasonably to have known both that his or her act or failure would cause a protected animal to suffer and that the suffering was unnecessary. This is not going to be established if DEFRA- approved traps are used in a vaguely “suitable” tunnel.
I suspect DEFRA are fully aware of the unlikeliness of prosecution so I regard their comments above as disingenuous to say the least. In reality there is little or no protection to stop or prevent animal suffering in traps like the one above.
Stoat on top bars of Tully trap. Photo: Bob Berzins
This Tully trap (photo above) has an enclosure of smaller gauge mesh but the stoat has still managed to end up on top of the bars of the trap with front paw only crushed in the trap. Once again this trap in reality has become an illegal leg hold trap.
Fenn Traps
As GWCT describe, killing a stoat in one of these traps is now unlawful because tests show it’s inhumane:
Stoat killed in Fenn trap (pre 2020). Photo: Bob Berzins
But killing a larger grey squirrel in a Fenn trap is still lawful:
Squirrel killed in Fenn trap. Photo: Bob Berzins
I asked DEFRA what testing had taken place to determine the humaneness of Fenn traps used for this species and the reply was: “The Fenn Vermin Trap Mark IV does not appear to have undergone any testing for grey squirrels. The approval for this trap was granted via the Spring Traps Approval (Amendment) Order 1970, prior to the implementation of the AIHTS.”
I fail to see how Fenn traps could pass any AIHTS level testing for humanely killing grey squirrels.
DEFRA claims “The UK is a world leader on animal welfare” (here). Yet even the traps which are approved to international standards have a shocking failure rate, no effective statutory requirements for tunnels/enclosures and in real life conditions strike, crush and hold a range of animal body parts. These traps are not working as intended resulting in animal suffering which is not prevented by the Animal Welfare Act and legal requirements for trap use.
The Scottish Government has finally published its commissioned review on increasing the Scottish SPCA’s investigatory powers to enable the organisation to help tackle wildlife crime, and particularly raptor persecution.
Buzzard killed after eating poisoned rabbit bait. Photo: NIRSG
As a quick recap for new blog readers, the SSPCA’s current powers (under animal welfare legislation) limits their investigations to cases that involve a live animal in distress (including some wildlife crimes). The proposed new powers would allow them to also investigate wildlife crimes under the Wildlife & Countryside Act legislation, e.g. where the victim is already dead, and also incidents where a victim may not be present (e.g. if an illegally-set pole trap or a poisoned bait was discovered). See here for further detail.
The review taskforce, launched in July 2022 and chaired by Susan Davies FRSB, was established after 11 long years of political can-kicking on this issue by the SNP, only because the Scottish Greens insisted on its inclusion in the historic Bute House Agreement, the power-sharing policy document published by the two parties in 2021.
The 13-page published review, which was submitted to the Scottish Government in October last year, can be read/downloaded here:
I haven’t read the review in detail yet but the main recommendation is that the Scottish SPCA NOT be given increased powers due to the lack of support for this provision from Police Scotland, the Crown Office and the National Wildlife Crime Unit (NWCU).
I’ll comment on that when the Scottish Government has published its own response to the review, which it previously said (here) would be published at the same time as the review was published, but I haven’t seen the Government’s response yet.
I think it’s prudent to wait to see the Government’s response before making any comment, although I’ve previously been critical of the apparent bias in favour of game-shooting industry organisations being invited to contribute to the review (all of whom are opposed to increased powers for the SSPCA), whereas opportunities for conservation organisations were apparently limited (see here and here).
Increased powers for the SSPCA is due to be debated at Stage 2 of the Wildlife & Muirburn (Scotland) Bill in the autumn, so this is far from over.
This issue has now been running for the last 12 years – here is the timeline of this sorry saga:
February 2011: Increased powers for the SSPCA was first suggested by MSP Peter Peacock as an amendment during the Wildlife & Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill debates. The then Environment Minister Roseanna Cunningham rejected it as an amendment but suggested a public consultation was in order.
September 2011: Seven months later Elaine Murray MSP (Scottish Labour) lodged a parliamentary motion that further powers for the SSPCA should be considered.
November 2011: Elaine Murray MSP (Scottish Labour) formalised the question in a P&Q session and the next Environment Minister, Stewart Stevenson MSP, then promised that the consultation would happen ‘in the first half of 2012’.
September 2012: Nine months later and nothing had happened so I asked Paul Wheelhouse MSP, as the new Environment Minister, when the consultation would take place. The response, in October 2012, was:
“The consultation has been delayed by resource pressures but will be brought forward in the near future”.
July 2013: Ten months later and still no sign so I asked the Environment Minister (still Paul Wheelhouse) again. In August 2013, this was the response:
“We regret that resource pressures did further delay the public consultation on the extension of SSPCA powers. However, I can confirm that the consultation document will be published later this year”.
September 2013: At a meeting of the PAW Executive Group, Minister Wheelhouse said this:
“The consultation on new powers for the SSPCA will be published in October 2013“.
January 2014: In response to one of this blog’s readers who wrote to the Minister (still Paul Wheelhouse) to ask why the consultation had not yet been published:
“We very much regret that resource pressures have caused further delays to the consultation to gain views on the extension of SSPCA powers. It will be published in the near future“.
31 March 2014: Public consultation launched.
1 September 2014: Consultation closed.
26 October 2014: I published my analysis of the consultation responses here.
22 January 2015: Analysis of consultation responses published by Scottish Government. 233 responses (although 7,256 responses if online petition included – see here).
I was told a decision would come from the new Environment Minister, Dr Aileen McLeod MSP, “in due course”.
1 September 2015: One year after the consultation closed and still nothing.
25 February 2016: In response to a question posed by the Rural Affairs, Climate Change & Environment Committee, Environment Minister Dr Aileen McLeod said: “I have some further matters to clarify with the SSPCA, however I do hope to be able to report on the Scottish Government’s position on this issue shortly“.
May 2016: Dr Aileen McLeod fails to get re-elected and loses her position as Environment Minister. Roseanna Cunningham is promoted to a newly-created position of Cabinet Secretary for the Environment.
12 May 2016: Mark Ruskell MSP (Scottish Greens) submits the following Parliamentary question:
Question S5W-00030 – To ask the Scottish Government when it will announce its decision regarding extending the powers of the Scottish SPCA to tackle wildlife crime.
26 May 2016: Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham responds with this:
A decision on whether to extend the investigatory powers of the Scottish SPCA will be announced in due course.
1 September 2016: Two years after the consultation closed and still nothing.
9 January 2017: Mark Ruskell MSP (Scottish Greens) submits the following Parliamentary question:
Question S5W-05982 – To ask the Scottish Government by what date it will publish its response to the consultation on the extension of wildlife crime investigative powers for inspectors in the Scottish SPCA.
17 January 2017: Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham responds:
A decision on whether to extend the investigatory powers of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals will be announced in the first half of 2017.
31 May 2017: Cabinet Secretary Roseanna Cunningham rejects an extension of powers for the SSPCA ‘based on legal advice’ and instead announces, as an alternative, a pilot scheme of Special Constables for the Cairngorms National Park (here). It later emerged in 2018 that this pilot scheme was also an alternative to the Government’s 2016 manifesto pledge to establish a Wildlife Crime Investigation Unit as part of Police Scotland – a pledge on which it had now reneged (see here).
November 2019: The pilot scheme of Special Constables in the Cairngorms National Park was an absolute failure as a grand total of zero wildlife crimes were recorded by the Special Constables but plenty were reported by others (see here).
June 2020: Mark Ruskell (Scottish Greens) proposed further powers for the SSPCA at Stage 2 of the Animals and Wildlife Bill. The latest Environment Minister, Mairi Gougeon persuaded him to withdraw the proposed amendment on the basis that she’d consider establishing a taskforce to convene ‘this summer’ to consider increased powers (see here).
December 2020: Mark Ruskell (Scottish Greens) submits two Parliamentary questions asking about the status of the taskforce and who is serving on it (see here).
January 2021: New Environment Minister Ben Macpherson says the taskforce has not yet been appointed but that it is “expected to be established later this year“ (see here).
September 2021: In the 2021 to 2022 Programme for Government it was announced that the ‘independent taskforce [Ed: still to be appointed] will report before the end of 2022’ (see here).
May 3 2022: In an interview with Max Wiszniewski of the REVIVE coalition for grouse moor reform, new Environment Minister Mairi McAllan said: “It’s imminent and I wish I could tell you today but we are just finalising the last few points for the membership but I’m hoping to be able to make an announcement about that in the next few weeks“ (see here).
1 July 2022: Scottish Government announces Susan Davies has been appointed to lead the taskforce review and will ‘publish a report later this year’ (see here).
27December 2022: A Scottish Government spokesperson tells Scotsman journalist the taskforce has completed its review and its findings will be published ‘within weeks’ (see here).
31 January 2023: An FoI response from the Scottish Government to this blog’s author reveals the Taskforce’s review was submitted to the Scottish Government on 22nd October 2022 and will be published ‘prior to summer 2023’.
1 February 2023: Wildlife crime: key conservation organisations ‘excluded’ from Scottish Government’s review on increasing SSPCA powers (here).
7 February 2023: Scottish Government tells journalist from The Scotsman that it will provide a response at the same time the Taskforce review on SSPCA powers is published (here).
7 March 2023: More detail provided on why key conservation organisations were excluded from Scottish Government’s review on increasing SSPCA powers (here).
21 June 2023: Scottish Government publishes its commissioned review on SSPCA powers.
UPDATE 27th June 2023: New investigatory powers for SSPCA proposed by Scottish Government (here)
There was an interesting case heard at Banff Sheriff Court yesterday where Scottish gamekeeper Terry Lindsay, 40, was facing a charge relating to the use of a trap that was alleged to have been illegally-set on Fyvie Estate in Aberdeenshire.
The trap at the centre of the trial was a clam trap (also known as a Larsen Mate trap) that had been baited with a pheasant carcass and placed next to a pheasant release pen on 26th August 2020. The use of these traps, baited with meat, is lawful (although highly contentious – see this blog from 10 years ago!) as long as certain General Licence conditions are met.
Here’s a photo of the trap. For readers unfamiliar with how they work, the spilt perch above the bait is designed to collapse when a bird lands on it, which causes the two metal sides of the trap to close (like a clam), capturing the bird inside the trap where it will remain until the trap operator comes along to either release the bird (if it’s a non-target species, such as a raptor) or club it to death if it’s a legitimate target species (e.g. crow).
Set trap on Fyvie Estate, 26th August 2020. Photo: RSPB
A write-up of the case was published yesterday in the Press & Journal (behind a paywall) but unfortunately the article includes a number of inaccuracies. For the purpose of clarification, I’ve reproduced the P&J article (below), followed by my understanding of the case.
Here’s the article published by the P&J yesterday:
A gamekeeper has been cleared of illegally trapping a protected bird after it emerged police officers lied during the course of the investigation.
The case against Terry Lindsay collapsed when Sheriff Robert McDonald heard evidence that officers misled two people about why they were on the Fyvie Estate.
Police had received a tip-off that a sparrowhawk was “beside” a trap but lied to estate staff about why they were there – instead saying it was to look for a missing person.
Sheriff McDonald said that “outright lie” made the police officers’ evidence inadmissible and acquitted Mr Lindsay, 40, less than an hour after the trial started at Banff Sheriff Court.
“It seems to me that the critical point is the lying,” Sheriff McDonald said.
“I think the evidence of the search is inadmissible. It’s fatal that police have told an outright lie to two members of the public who, as I pointed out, had some authority as to who comes onto the land.
“That compounds it. I find the evidence inadmissible.”
A Police Scotland spokesman said: “We are aware of the outcome in court and the full circumstances leading to yesterday’s trial are being reviewed.”
The verdict was met with “disappointment” by the RSPB, the bird welfare charity which initially came across the trap and reported its whereabouts to police.
Pc Alison Davis told the trial she and her sergeant, Gary Johnston, spent about an hour scouring the estate on August 26 2020 after an RSPB informant made them aware there was a “trap with a bird beside it”.
She told procurator fiscal Gerard Droogan they were approached by a gamekeeper and the laird, Sir George Forbes-Leith, and told both that they were searching for a missing person.
“There was no truth in that as far as I am aware,” Pc Davis said, before adding: “He [Sgt Johnston] said to me afterwards that he was concerned that any evidence would be lost, or words to that effect.”
Mr Lindsay’s defence agent Paul Anderson asked Pc Davis why neither conversation was included in her statement.
She replied: “I didn’t consider them to be witnesses. I didn’t think of that as relevant to the inquiry. That’s why it’s not in my statement. It was certainly not intentionally left out.”
Mr Anderson asked: “Two lies were told in the space of one hour to two separate members of the public?”
“Yes,” replied the officer.
During her evidence, Pc Davis also explained how they eventually found the trap with a sparrowhawk inside around 20 metres from a pheasant breeding operation on the estate.
The bird was alive, she took photos of it and they released it, before placing the trap in the back of the van, she said.
Mr Anderson said this decision to lie, alongside a decision to search the land “without reasonable cause to suspect someone was committing an offence”, made any police evidence “unreliable and uncredible”.
“There were lies told to two members of the public within one hour about why police were on the land,” he told Sheriff McDonald.
“It’s inexcusable. The evidence is so tainted it cannot be considered by the court.”
He added the lies became “fatal to the search” and invited the sheriff to offer an acquittal.
Sheriff McDonald agreed and Mr Lindsay, of North Haddo, Fyvie, was acquitted of the charge under the Wildlife and Countryside Scotland Act 1981.
Speaking after the case, the RSPB said more needed to be done to regulate the use of traps.
Ian Thomson, RSPB Scotland’s head of investigations, told The Press and Journal: “While we are disappointed that this case was dismissed after the court considered witness evidence from the police, we remain concerned that traps authorised by the General Licences issued annually by NatureScot continue to be poorly regulated, with no compliance monitoring, and are widely misused and abused.
“We hope that provisions introduced by the Wildlife Management and Muirburn Bill, currently being considered by the Scottish Parliament, bring better training, accountability and tighter regulation of such devices that are in widespread use on gamebird shooting estates in particular.”
A Fyvie Estate spokesman said: “As per other legally set Larsen traps, a sparrowhawk was caught and upon Mr Lindsay checking the trap, he found the police in attendance. The sparrowhawk was released unharmed by police officers.
“All traps are licensed and tagged, and a meat bait return form is completed as per Nature Scot guidelines showing the release of non-target species caught. The beauty of this type of trap is that they are checked several times a day and birds can be released unharmed.”
ENDS
My understanding is that the main inaccuracy in this article is that the RSPB did not report a sparrowhawk being “beside” a trap to Police Scotland. Rather, the RSPB reported what appeared to be an illegally-set trap. It was suspected to be illegally-set because the trap didn’t appear to have a trap registration number attached to it (this is one of the conditions of the General Licence) so quite rightly, the RSPB reported it to Police Scotland for investigation.
By the time Police Scotland attended the scene, a raptor had been caught in the trap. It’s been reported that this was a sparrowhawk but the photographs suggest it was a goshawk. The species ID isn’t a significant issue though – it’s not unlawful to trap a raptor inside a clam trap, whatever species it is; it only becomes unlawful if the raptor isn’t released, unharmed, as soon as it’s discovered by the trap operator during the daily trap check. In this case, the police officers released the unharmed hawk, so no problem there.
Those are the two main inaccuracies in the article, as far as I’m aware.
What happened in court, according to the article, I’ll have to take at face value.
It seems the fact that the two Police Scotland officers lied to the estate owner and to the gamekeeper about their reason for being on the estate is not disputed. Unfortunately, the article doesn’t examine why the police officers lied about it. If they had reasonable suspicion that a crime may have been committed, they had full authority to enter the estate and conduct an initial land search, without a warrant. There was no reason for them to lie about the purpose of their visit – they had the authority to be there, under Section 19 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981, which states:
‘If a constable suspects with reasonable cause that any person is committing, or has committed, an offence under this Part, he may, for the purpose of exercising the powers conferred by subsection (1), enter any land other than a dwelling or lockfast premises‘.
So why lie about their reason for visiting the estate? Why did they pretend they were looking for a missing person?
The only explanation I can think of (and this is pure speculation because I haven’t spoken to the two officers about it), is that they weren’t specialist Wildlife Crime Officers and so didn’t understand the extent of their powers to access the land and search for evidence.
If that is the case, it still doesn’t justify them lying to the landowner and the gamekeeper, but it perhaps provides an explanation of sorts.
Whatever their reasoning was, however, their actions are an embarrassment to Police Scotland and I hope that the ‘review of the full circumstances’, as stated in the P&J article, leads to lessons being learned.
For clarity, and for the benefit of anyone who might comment on this case, please note that gamekeeper Mr Lindsay was acquitted and any evidence about the alleged illegally-set trap was not put before the court because the Police Officers’ evidence was deemed inadmissible.
Further to this morning’s news that Millden Estate in the Angus Glens has been slapped with a three-year General Licence restriction after evidence was found of raptor persecution crimes (see here), it’s worth examining the background to this case.
Millden is one of a number of grouse-shooting estates situated in the Angus Glens that has featured many, many times on this blog (see here for all Millden posts).
Location of Millden Estate in the Angus Glens. Estate boundaries sourced from Andy Wightman’s Who Owns Scotland website
Millden Estate first came to my attention in July 2009 when a young satellite-tagged golden eagle called Alma was found dead on the moor – she’d ingested the deadly poison Carbofuran (here). It wasn’t clear where she’d been poisoned and the estate denied responsibility.
Then in 2012 there was the case of another satellite-tagged golden eagle, believed to have been caught in a spring trap on Millden Estate before moving, mysteriously, several km north during the night-time only to be found dead in a layby with two broken legs a few days later (here and here). The estate denied responsibility and the Scottish Gamekeepers Association conducted an ‘analysis’ (cough) and deduced it was all just a terrible accident (here).
There have been other incidents – former Tayside Police Wildlife Crime Officer Alan Stewart describes ‘a horrendous catalogue of criminality’ recorded on Millden Estate during his time (see here). However, despite this history, nobody has ever been prosecuted for raptor persecution crimes on Millden Estate.
Today’s announcement from NatureScot that a General Licence restriction has been imposed on Millden Estate is the first sanction I’m aware of at this location. It has been imposed after three shot buzzards were found in bags outside two gamekeeper’s cottages during an SSPCA-led investigation into badger-baiting and other animal-fighting offences in 2019.
That investigation led to the successful conviction in May 2022 of depraved Millden Estate gamekeeper Rhys Davies for his involvement in some sickening animal cruelty crimes (see here). Despite his conviction, Millden Estate denied all knowledge of this employee’s criminal activities (here).
There hasn’t been a prosecution for the shooting (or possession) of those three shot buzzards, nor for the six other shot raptors found in a bag just a short distance from the Millden Estate boundary (here), and nor will there be, according to a statement provided to me by the Crown Office (here).
With this long history of un-attributable wildlife crime on and close to Millden Estate, the imposition of a General Licence restriction is welcome news, although in real terms it’s nothing more than a minor inconvenience to the estate. It doesn’t stop their legal killing of so-called pest species (e.g. crows) because all they have to do is apply for an Individual licence, which NatureScot will have to grant (although it can revoke an Individual licence if more evidence of crime emerges – as happened on Raeshaw Estate in 2017 – see here), and nor does it stop the legal killing of red grouse, pheasants or red-legged partridge by paying guests.
This photograph appeared on social media in 2017 titled ‘Team Millden’ and shows a bunch of blokes dressed in Millden tweed grinning inside the estate’s larder after a day’s grouse shooting.
I’ve written about the monumental ineffectiveness of General Licence restrictions many times (e.g. see here, here, here, here, here) and my view hasn’t changed. The only weight that a General Licence restriction carries is a reputational hit for the estate on which it is imposed, which was the Environment Minister’s aim when GL restrictions were first mooted (here).
This is useful from a campaigner’s perspective because it allows us to demonstrate that raptor persecution continues on Scottish grouse moors, despite the absurd denials of senior industry representatives (e.g. see here).
But it doesn’t stop the estate’s business activities. You might think that others in the industry, or even elected politicians, would shun a restricted estate but that simply doesn’t happen (e.g. see here and here).
And nor is it an effective deterrent – Leadhills Estate, a grouse moor in South Lanarkshire, was slapped with a second General Licence restriction after ‘clear evidence’ of wildlife crime was uncovered whilst the estate was still serving its first restriction notice (see here)!
Given the current number of grouse-shooting estates serving General Licence restrictions after ‘clear evidence’ of wildlife crime was provided by Police Scotland: Leadhills Estate (here), Lochan Estate (here), Leadhills Estate [again] (here), Invercauld Estate (here), Moy Estate (here) and now Millden Estate (here), it’s clear that the Scottish Government’s proposed grouse-shoot licensing scheme can’t come soon enough.
There are strong rumours that the Wildlife Management (Grouse) Bill will be presented to the Scottish Parliament before Easter and many of us are eagerly awaiting its publication to see the details of what is proposed and, importantly, how it will be enforced.
One thing’s for sure, it will need to be a lot more robust than the General Licence restriction and any sanctions, which should hopefully include terminating an estate’s ability to continue gamebird shooting during a determined-sanction period, will need to be deployed a lot quicker than the time it takes for a General Licence restriction to be imposed (it’s taken four years for the GL restriction to be placed on Millden Estate).
UPDATE 10th March 2023: Millden Estate says it will appeal General Licence restriction imposed after evidence of raptor persecution (here)
Over the weekend I was advised that a barn owl had reportedly been found dead inside a crow cage trap situated on a grouse moor in the notorious raptor persecution hotspot, the Angus Glens.
The discovery was apparently made during the first week of January 2023.
I understand the trap was tagged with the operator’s registration number (now a legal requirement in Scotland) and that the trap had not been disabled (i.e. the door hadn’t been removed/padlocked open) and so as far as the law is concerned, the trap was considered to be in-use, which means the trap operator has a legal obligation to check the trap at least once every 24 hours and release any non-target species. The General Licence conditions also state, ‘A check must be sufficient to determine whether there are any live or dead birds or other animals in the trap‘.
I asked Police Scotland to confirm the details of this case, whether a police search had been undertaken, if so, when, and what the current status is of the investigation?
After some hesitation, this afternoon a police spokesperson provided the following statement:
“The incident has been reported to police and enquiries are ongoing“.
There’s more to this case than meets the eye. Watch this space…
UPDATE 19th January 2023: This blog article was picked up by The Courier, here
Raptor Persecution UK 