National press picks up on buzzard ‘management’ row

Following earlier posts on DEFRA’s ‘management’ plan for buzzards (see here and here)…..this outrageous proposal has now attracted the attention of the mainstream media.

BBC news article here

The Telegraph has it’s usual pro-shooting stance here (illustrated by a picture of a falcon! Now removed!). This article includes a fantastic quote from David Taylor of the Countryside Alliance, who insisted, “gamekeepers do not want to kill buzzards“. Of course they don’t, David, they despise themselves everytime they illegally shoot, poison or trap one, and they can’t look at themselves in the mirror after they make yet another application for a buzzard-shooting licence. [Hover your cursor over the image of the dead buzzard to find out how much love one member of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association had for buzzards. Six months before he did this, he was convicted for having a buzzard inside an illegally-operated crow trap on the very same game-shooting estate!].

There’s a BBC news video (here) that includes an interview with the RSPB (also includes some footage of a Harris’ Hawk – these picture editors really need to get their acts together!).

The Independent has an article (here) with a statement from Shadow Environment Secretary Mary Creagh, who has called for the government to drop the project: “The restoration of the buzzard population has been a real success in recent years. It is astounding that DEFRA are wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money disrupting this protected species. This out-of-touch Government’s priority is protecting the interests of large commercial shooting estates and non-native pheasants, rather than protecting our country’s native species. The Government should drop this plan now. This has all the hallmarks of another DEFRA shambles“.

And of course we are all able to have our say through social media. The tweets, blogs and emails continue….best tweet of the day goes to @WarwickSloss: “Buzzard management to protect pheasant farmers? Brilliant. We have a proud history of ‘managing’ raptors. What could possibly go wrong?”

Keep at it everyone. If you haven’t already emailed DEFRA Minister Richard Benyon MP (who just happens to be a grouse moor owner) to tell him what you think about his master plan to ‘manage’ buzzards, please take a minute to do it now: richard.benyon.mp@parliament.uk. If you can copy in your own local MP then all the better; Benyon will get a double whammy effect when all these local MPs start asking him what on earth his department is doing!

UPDATE (24 May) – click here to read DEFRA’s response to public outcry and click here to sign a petition against the buzzard ‘management’ trial.

RSPB response to DEFRA’s proposed (illegal) buzzard trial

Following on from Monday’s story about DEFRA’s plan to fund a buzzard ‘management’ trial on pheasant-shooting estates in Northumberland (see here), the RSPB has published a response statement.

Martin Harper, RSPB Conservation Director said:

We are shocked by Defra’s plans to destroy buzzard nests and to take buzzards into captivity to protect a non-native game bird released in its millions. Buzzards play a minor role in pheasant losses, compared with other factors like collisions with vehicles.

Common pheasants are not native to the UK. Around 40 million birds are released every year for shooting. The impacts of this practice on wildlife have been poorly documented, but serious questions have been raised about the impact such a large injection of captive-reared birds might have on the predator-prey balance in our countryside.

Buzzards will take young pheasants from rearing pens, given the opportunity, but the RSPB believes the issue can be managed without destroying nests or moving buzzards. Measures include providing more cover for young pheasants in release pens, visual deterrents to discourage birds of prey and providing alternative food sources.

There are options for addressing the relatively small number of pheasant poults lost to buzzards. Destroying nests is completely unjustified and catching and removing buzzards is unlikely to reduce predation levels, as another buzzard will quickly take its place. Both techniques would be illegal under current wildlife laws, and I think most people will agree with us that reaching for primitive measures, such as imprisoning buzzards or destroying their nests, when wildlife and economic interests collide is totally unacceptable.

At a time when funding for vital conservation work is so tight, and with another bird of prey, the hen harrier, facing extinction as a breeding bird in England, I can think of better ways of spending £400,000 of public funds. This money could work harder for wildlife, and I hope the Government will therefore put a stop to this project.”

Full statement can be read on British Birds here

So what can you do? You can email DEFRA Minister Richard Benyon MP (richard.benyon.mp@parliament.uk) and tell him what you think about this illegal, scientifically-illiterate and unethical trial. You might want to ask him what scientific evidence was used to justify the proposal and ask him whether there was any consultation on the issue, and if there was, which organisations were consulted?

Go for it. There has been so much interest in this story and so many people expressing their outrage – let’s put it to good use and make sure Mr Benyon knows the strength of feeling on this.

UPDATE: Message sent to RPS readers from Nigel Middleton, Conservation Officer (Eastern Region) for the Hawk and Owl Trust:

Please Everybody , just to let you know the RSPB, Hawk and Owl Trust and Northern England Raptor Study Groups are aware of what is going on hence the press statement [today], all the groups are totally against the proposals and have representatives on the commitee that is fighting the cause of the buzzard, even if i have to chain myself to richard benyons office! i hope you will all back me. Please send as many letters expressing your disgust at such a move not just to him but also your local MPs. They will not win on this one.”

UPDATE (24 May) – see here for national media response to this ‘management’ proposal.

Buzzard ‘management’ trial gets govt approval and £375K funding

So, while we’ve all been busy asking what the government plans to do about the imminent demise of the English hen harrier breeding population, the government has itself been busy putting together some funding, at the behest of the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, to set up a trial to evaluate ‘management techniques’ to reduce the so-called ‘significant’ effect of buzzards on pheasant poults.

Yes, you read that correctly. DEFRA is interested in finding measures of controlling a native species (at the request of gamekeepers) that not only is recovering from past persecution (by gamekeepers), but still is undergoing illegal persecution (by gamekeepers) in the interests of protecting a non-native species that is reared and released (by gamekeepers) for people to kill for sport. Amazing.

It’s been estimated that over 40 million non-native pheasants are released in to the countryside each year, although it’s difficult to assess the accuracy of this number as there aren’t any limits on the number that can be released and there aren’t any reporting requirements for this to be monitored. What is clear is that the game shooting industry is undisputably linked to the continuing illegal persecution of birds of prey in this country and yet here is a government department basing a research decision solely on the opinion of some within that industry without a shred of scientific evidence to support their claims. [Interestingly, GWCT did a study a few years back on the fate of released pheasants; “Of 486 radio-tagged birds, we think three were killed by raptors” – see here. That’s 0.6%! Is that ‘significant’?].

So what does this trial entail? Basically, whoever is given the contract to conduct the research has to evaluate four different methods of buzzard management techniques:

1. Cut vegetative or artifical cover inside and outside pheasant-rearing pens. Provide shelters/refuges in the form of brash piles or wigwams. Possibly also wooden shelters/ refuges.

2. Diversionary feeding. Whole carcasses left on posts out of reach of ground predators. Type of carcass to be agreed with site owners. Provide for limited periods to reduce risk of increase in local buzzard population.

3. Translocation (permanent). Permanent removal off-site, for example, to a falconry centre. NE [Natural England] would be able to provide assistance for researchers in planning and licensing negotiations with potential recipients.

4. Nest destruction. Breeding birds displaced by destroying nests under construction, for example, using squirrel drey-poking pole or shotgun from below thereby forcing the pair to move on to find another nest site or not breed that year. Care would be needed to avoid injuring birds.

The study is anticipated to last for up to three years and £125k per annum will be available to fund it. The study sites have not yet been formally identified but DEFRA is encouraging bidders to use ‘a site that consists of 6 shoots spread over an area of 2000-2400 hectares in Northumberland’. It is not yet known who has won the bid to conduct this research (bidding closed at the end of April) but we’ll be keeping a close eye out on that.

DEFRA does emphasise its interest in ‘non-lethal’ management techniques, at the moment at least, but I think we can all probably see where this is heading. Part of the justification DEFRA uses for this study is the increase in buzzard numbers from 1995-2009 (duh – of course they’re increasing as they recolonise areas where previously they had been wiped out). Are we getting to the stage where raptor fieldworkers should start thinking about witholding their field survey results? If this is what the government is using those data for then there’s quite a strong argument for it!

Here’s the background info provided by DEFRA to research bidders: Buzzard control experiment overview

STOP PRESS (Tues 22 May) – Many thanks to everyone who has tweeted and posted on Facebook and on their own blogs about this story. Our visitor numbers have sky-rocketed in response, no doubt helped by a certain Chris Packham (thanks, Chris!). Please keep spreading the word; DEFRA cannot be allowed to get away with this. RSPB will be issuing a statement tomorrow.

STOP PRESS (Weds 23 May) – go here to read RSPB response and find out what you can do to stop this trial.

Hen harriers, again

Last week we mentioned that Mark Avery had come out fighting on behalf of hen harriers (see here). Today he’s back on the same subject, knocking at Natural England’s door to try and find out what has happened to 119 hen harriers that have been radio and satellite-tagged since 2002 (see here).

He’s not the only one who’s been asking questions of Natural England about missing hen harriers. Last November we blogged about a satellite-tagged hen harrier from the Langholm Project that had mysteriously ‘disappeared’ (see here). Natural England are in charge of the hen harrier satellite tag data from Langholm. In December, MSP Elaine Murray asked Scottish Environment Minister Stewart Stevenson how much he knew about all of the missing hen harriers that had been satellite tagged at Langholm. His response was vague (here) and didn’t shine any light on what might have happened (notably he failed to mention that the last known signals of many of these young birds just happened to come from grouse moors).

‘Ah’, cried the grouse shooting lobby, ‘but no dead birds were discovered so you can’t assume that they died on a grouse moor’. Of course no dead bodies were discovered. The Langholm Project protocol for investigating the disapearance of their young tagged harriers was to first call up the landowner where the last signal had come from and ask permission to visit the estate to search for the bird! That’s as stupid as a police commander phoning up a suspected drug dealer and telling him the police are coming to search his house later that day so he’d better be ready!

It’s interesting that Natural England were put in charge of all the hen harrier satellite tag data from the Langholm Project (a project that is based in Scotland). Why was that? Was it perhaps because they’d done so well in protecting (keeping secret) all the hen harrier satellite tag data in England since 2002? Both projects have received a considerable amount of public funding – why are we not entitled to read the results?

It’s worth re-visiting something we blogged about at the end of March (here) concerning the UK parliamentary audit on wildlife crime. It included a statement from the Moorland Association (pro-grouse shooting crowd) about hen harriers:

The scale of crime against the hen harrier and its impact on the hen harrier population has been overstated and is misleading. A lack of breeding success on grouse moors does not automatically mean that laws have been broken. There are many, many more birds in England than four successfully nesting pairs, which can be seen over grouse moor during migration and at winter roost sites.

Until a full set of special rules allowing the positive management of hen harriers breeding on grouse moors is forthcoming from the Environment Council’s Hen Harrier Dialogue, moorland owners are within their rights and the law to deter the birds from settling on their moors to breed.”

That kind of says it all, doesn’t it?

Crow traps: what you should know part 3

This article follows on from Crow traps: what you should know part 1 (here) and part 2 (here). We haven’t been able to find a detailed, up to date article on this subject so we’ve taken information from a variety of sources including the police, Paw Scotland, SNH, RSPB, OneKind, SSPCA and the Raptor Study Groups. This is just our interpretation of the available information and doesn’t constitute an official, legal interpretation. Who knows, maybe PAW Scotland will produce something more definitive in the near future…

How to tell the difference between a legally-operated and an illegally-operated crow cage trap.

As we discussed in part 2, it is not always easy to determine whether a trap is being legally-operated because some of the conditions that the trap operator must comply with under the terms of the general licence can be quite ambiguous. Quite often the distinction between a legally and an illegally-operated trap is blurred. It helps if you are already aware of the conditions of the general licence (see here for licences 1-3 used by crow trap operators) as although there is ambiguity on some issues, there are other things that are easier to recognise as an indication of almost certain illegal use.

Almost certainly illegal

1. An operational trap must display a tag or a sign with the telephone number of the local police station or Police Wildlife Crime Officer as well as a police-issued trap code number that allows the police to identify the trap owner. If you find a crow cage trap that’s being used without one of these signs it is being illegally-operated. Don’t be fooled by a sign that doesn’t contain these numbers but says something like, ‘RSPB bird conservation project”. We are aware that some trap operators have tried to trick the general public with misleading and sometimes fraudulent signs.

2. The type of bird used as a decoy inside the trap is restricted to certain species of corvids (check the specific general licences for current lists). If the decoy bird is anything other than a permitted decoy species, the trap is being illegally-operated. Particular attention should be paid if the decoy is a raven or a pigeon/dove. These are definitely NOT permitted decoy species and are an indication that the trap is probably being used illegally to attract non-target species (ravens and raptors).

3. The decoy bird(s) must not be tethered, blinded or maimed. If it is, the trap is being illegally-operated.

4. The decoy bird(s) must have ‘adequate’ food and water. The term ‘adequate’ is ambiguous and will be discussed in the ‘possibly illegal’ category below. However, if food and water is not present at all, the trap is being illegally-operated.

5. The decoy bird(s) must be provided with a ‘suitable’ perch that does not cause discomfort to the bird’s feet. The term ‘suitable’ is ambiguous and will be discussed in the ‘possibly illegal’ category below. However, if no perch is provided at all, the trap is being illegally-operated.

6. The decoy bird(s) must be provided with ‘adequate’ shelter with ‘adequate’ protection from the prevailing wind and rain. As before, the term ‘adequate’ is ambiguous and will be discussed in the ‘possibly illegal’ category below. However, if no shelter has been provided at all, the trap is being illegally-operated.

7. If there are dead birds inside the trap (either target or non-target species) that have been there for longer than 24 hours (i.e. they are decomposed or skeletal) then the trap is being illegally-operated. Trap operators are required to inspect each operational trap at least once every day at intervals of no more than 24 hours, except where severe weather prohibits. Dead or sickly birds must be immediately removed from the trap.

8. If the trap is not in use (no decoy bird(s)) but the trap door or a panel has not been either removed from the site completely or taken off the trap and secured with a locked padlock, then the trap is being illegally-operated. Wedging the door open with a boulder or a log is not enough – the door or a panel must be removed completely.

Possibly illegal

1. If a decoy bird has not been provided with ‘adequate’ food and water. ‘Adequate’ is open to interpretation and is highly subjective. If the water is filthy and covered in algae, is it considered ‘adequate’? What constitutes ‘adequate’ food for a carrion crow? Usually they are given dead rabbits or hares inside these traps but we’ve also seen dog biscuits and grain!

2. If a decoy bird has not been provided with an ‘adequate’ perch that does not cause discomfort to the bird’s feet. Again, this is ambiguous and depends on the decoy species. The perch should be thick enough for the bird to perch without its toes curling around and digging into its foot, which could cause injury and pain. So a strand of wire stretched across the inside of the trap is unlikely to be considered an ‘adequate’ perch.

3. If a decoy bird has not been provided with ‘adequate’ shelter with ‘adequate’ protection from the prevailing wind and rain. According to a OneKind report, some cage traps have been seen with a piece of plastic less than the size of an A4 sheet of paper serving as a shelter. Is this ‘adequate’? Probably not because it won’t offer shelter from the prevailing wind and rain. Other traps have been seen with the soggy pulp of a former cardboard box stuck in the corner – clearly inadequate!

4. If a decoy bird looks sickly or injured. The bird may have become sick or injured itself since the trap operator’s last visit, so the trap operator hasn’t committed an offence (unless he fails to remove the bird at his next visit). However, the bird could have a long-term sickness or injury (e.g. feathers worn down to stumps and bleeding carpals: injuries consistent with long-term attempts to escape by flying at the side of the cage) in which case the bird should have been removed and it’s highly probable an offence has been committed.

5. If there are multiple birds inside the trap. Crow cage trap operators are permitted to use more than one decoy bird as long as it is one of the permitted corvid decoy species (as opposed to a Larsen trap where only a single decoy is permitted). However, these decoy birds are not marked in any way as to distinguish them from any other trapped bird. This makes it difficult to determine whether the trap has been left un-inspected for longer than 24 hours (because the trap operator can claim all the birds inside the trap are being used as decoys).

6. If there is a raptor (or another non-target species) caught inside the trap. It’s important to know that it is not illegal to accidentally catch a raptor or other non-target species inside a crow cage trap. It is illegal, however, for the trap operator not to release the bird, unharmed, immediately on discovery. How do you tell whether the raptor has been inside the trap for longer than 24 hours? It’s very difficult, unless you saw it inside the trap more than 24 hours previously, and even then this would be difficult to prove because (a) unless it is uniquely marked how do you know it’s the same bird?, and (b) the trap operator could claim the bird was released and has since re-entered the trap since the last inspection! If the raptor is dead and decomposed it is highly probable an offence has been committed.

What should you do if you suspect a trap is being illegally-operated?

1. Be suspicious.

2. Take photographs and/or video.

3. Record your location (either GPS or map reference if possible).

4. Record the date and time.

5. If you are with anyone, make sure they’ve seen what you’ve seen (corroborative evidence).

6. Don’t be fooled by anything written on the trap sign, even if it says ‘This is a legal trap’. It may well be a legal trap but it might be being illegally-operated.

7. Don’t interfere with the trap (but see point 5 below) or you could be prosecuted for criminal damage.

8. Beware of hidden cameras pointing at the trap and also be aware that some of these cameras can also record your voice!

9. As soon as possible after discovery, report your concerns to the authorities (see section below).

10. If the trap contains a raptor that looks in good health, you need to report it IMMEDIATELY (see below for your choice of reporting agencies). You shouldn’t be tempted to release the bird yourself (unless there is a genuine welfare concern, see below). If none of the reporting agencies can respond in good time, you should call the police again and request permission to release the bird yourself, as long as you are certain it is uninjured. Make sure you get the name or number of the police officer you speak to!

What should you do if you are concerned about the welfare of a trapped bird?

If you discover a trap that contains any bird that is in distress or is injured, you have a decision to make about what to do.

1. The recommended advice from the police is to call them (using the telephone number on the trap sign, assuming there is one). However, calling the police can be very hit and miss, depending on your location. Some police forces will send someone out straight away. Sometimes there may be a considerable delay if the police are busy with other call-outs. Sometimes you won’t be able to get a police response because the WCO is off-duty or just not answering the phone! Sometimes the police may call the trap operator and ask him to attend – this could be dangerous as the trap operator may take the injured bird (let’s say it’s a protected raptor species) and pretend to be conveying it to a vet when his real intention (when out of sight) may be much more sinister.

3. Apart from the police, the only other agency that has the statutory authority to investigate a potential animal welfare incident is the SSPCA. The benefit to calling the SSPCA first is that they have a 24 hour animal helpline (enter this into your phone now! – 03000 999 999). This phone number is specifically for calls about animal welfare incidents and SSPCA officers are trained to handle distressed animals. The SSPCA can attend an incident and remove an animal for veterinary care without needing permission from the police. They are also trained to recognise whether an offence has been committed and can prosecute without any help from the police. The SSPCA would be our first port of call every time.

4. Many people would think of the RSPB as an obvious first call but the RSPB has no more authority than you. They would have to involve one of the official reporting agencies (police or SSPCA) for anything to happen so it could be argued that you are wasting time by calling the RSPB first, although they would be a good source of advice and if the other two agencies can’t respond in good time the RSPB would be your next best bet. Tel: 0131 317 4100.

5. If none of the above agencies can respond in good time, which is rare but sometimes does happen, and you genuinely believe that the injured/distressed bird requires immediate help, any decent person would remove it and get it to a vet as fast as possible (as seen in the recent incident at Lindertis Estate here). This may involve damage to the trap (e.g. if the padlock has to be broken to open the door). Would this result in a criminal prosecution against the person trying to rescue a distressed or injured bird? It might seem unlikely but see here for a recent warning written by Scottish Land and Estates and published on the PAW Scotland website!! Would a prosecution against the rescuer depend on whether the trap was being legally or illegally-operated? It’s well documented that it may be an offence to interfere with a legally set trap, but we are often advised that if we find what we think is an illegally set trap (e.g. a pole trap) then we should disable it. Now we’ve all seen some of the strange decisions made by COPFS in the recent past but to criminalise the action of someone who is genuinely trying to help an injured/distressed animal and who has tried to involve the reporting agencies but without success, would doubtless result in public uproar. We’re not aware of any prosecutions of this type and we might expect COPFS to be able to tell the difference between someone who had a malicious intent to release a bird because they didn’t agree with it’s confinement and someone wanting to help a distressed animal.  It will probably help if there is photographic and/or video evidence of the distressed/injured bird inside the trap and if the actions have been reported to the SSPCA or the local police.

Please note: this advice goes against that given by PAW Scotland (see here) who say don’t attempt to remove a bird (although they don’t specify whether they’re talking about an injured/distressed bird, or just a trapped but healthy bird) but then they don’t offer any other advice if the reporting agencies fail to attend! It seems that this is a subject that requires greater clarity for all concerned. And of course, let’s not forget that if all trap operators were responsible individuals who could be trusted to operate within the law then a lot of the issues raised here would be redundant.

Crow traps: what you should know part 2

Following on from our earlier blog – Crow traps: what you should know part 1 (here)

The following information concerns the use of crow cage traps in Scotland; they are also used in other parts of the UK although the terms of use differ slightly (see here for information on their use in England, here for Wales and here for Northern Ireland).

What is a crow trap and why should we be concerned about them?

There are various types of animal traps in use in the countryside but the two we focus on in this article are the ‘ladder’ and ‘funnel’ crow cage traps. These are large, walk-in traps usually constructed with a wooden frame and wire mesh netting. A decoy bird (often a carrion crow but certain other decoy species are also permitted) is placed inside the trap to attract corvids or other target species. Birds that are attracted to the trap can enter via the roof, either through the horizontal slots of the ‘ladder’ or via a ‘funnel’. Once inside the trap it is virtually impossible for the birds to escape unaided. These trapped birds are usually destined to certain death at the hands of the trap operator who is legally authorised to kill them, subject to certain conditions (discussed in Part 3). In some rare circumstances, raptor workers deploy temporary crow cage traps to capture buzzards for marking projects, such as wing-tagging etc. Obviously these buzzards are released as soon as they’ve been marked; they aren’t killed by the trap operator!

There are many concerns surrounding the use of crow cage traps (some we’ll discuss below) but the over-riding concern is the indiscriminate nature of these traps, which means that species other than the target species can be, and often are, caught by gamekeepers, e.g. buzzards, goshawks, golden eagles etc. It is not illegal to (accidentally) trap these non-target species, but it is an offence for the trap operator not to release them, unharmed, at the earliest opportunity. More on this in Part 3.

Crow trap use is governed by a general licence, issued annually by Scottish Natural Heritage (see here). These licences are issued for the purpose of either (a) the conservation of wild birds, (b) to prevent serious damage to livestock, foodstuffs for livestock, crops, vegetables and fruit, and (c) to protect public health, public safety and prevent the spread of disease. Trap operators need not ‘apply’ for an individual licence, hence the name ‘general’ licence. Each general licence is subject to strict conditions (discussed in Part 3). If the trap operator complies with all the conditions of the general licence then the use of the crow trap is legal. However, in practice some of these conditions are ambiguous at best, and this is recognised by SNH who undertake regular consultations aimed at clarifying the terms of use (e.g. see here for their latest consultation plans).

Before we get in to the nitty gritty of how to recognise a legal trap from an illegal trap it’s worth mentioning that the RSPB (and other groups such as OneKind) has long campaigned for a more thorough review of the legal framework concerning these general licences for crow traps, particularly in relation to potential breaches of European legislation, including the EC Birds Directive. For anyone interested in the RSPB’s position, this document from 2007 (here) is informative.

Other concerns include the fact that there isn’t any effective monitoring of the impact these traps have on both target and non-target species. Crow traps are in use across Scotland year-round but are especially associated with upland grouse moors. It isn’t known exactly how many crow traps are in operation in Scotland but a conservative estimate would be in the hundreds, but probably nearer the thousands. There is currently no requirement for trap operators to record and/or report the number of target and non-target species caught and killed inside a trap (and even if there was such a requirement, who would believe the submitted figures? No gamekeeper is going to admit to illegally killing a protected species!). So how can the regulatory body (SNH) monitor the impact of crow trap use when they haven’t got a clue just how many traps are in use and how many birds and of what species are being killed each year? The follow-on question is, how can these general licences still be issued when the regulatory body cannot justify, in quantifiable terms, the need for lethal control measures?

Some may argue that there is now a record of the number of traps in use because recent changes to the general licences now require that a sign is attached to each trap with a unique identifying code issued by the local police force. However, this unique code is not assigned to an individual trap or to an individual trap operator, but rather to a landowner (or occupier) such as a sporting estate or a farm. This means that an estate owner can use the same code for multiple traps on his/her land (e.g. they may have just one trap or they may have 50+ traps depending on the size of the estate); the point is that the authorities do not have any means of knowing how many traps are in use on a particular estate because they only issue one code per estate.

From a law enforcement perspective, this use of a single identifying code for multiple traps makes it almost impossible to prosecute an individual for illegal use of the trap. For example, if a golden eagle is found dead inside a trap, and it’s obviously been there for a long time, then an offence has probably been committed (because traps must be checked at least once in every 24 hour period – see Part 3). Investigators may attend the scene but find that the trap is located on a large estate that employs multiple gamekeepers. None of the gamekeepers admit responsibility, so how does the investigator identify the individual responsible? A prosecution cannot commence unless an individual suspect is identified. It’s the same loophole we’ve seen used so many times when poisoned bait has been found on a large estate; nobody admits responsibility for laying the bait and thus the perpetrator(s) escape justice. It is only when the trap is located on a smaller estate where a single gamekeeper is employed that there is any chance of a prosecution.

Talking of loopholes….we’ve touched on this briefly in previous posts….in 2008 a new condition was added to the terms of use of the general licences. That new condition was that anyone who had a previous wildlife crime conviction was not allowed to use the general licence unless their conviction was considered ‘spent’, i.e. after five years from conviction. (Although even if you did have a recent conviction you could still apply for use of the licence and each case would be considered on merit, so it’s not quite the draconian condition that some imply). However, in 2009 the condition (of being banned for five years) was modified and we don’t recall any consultation about the insertion of this modification! The new modification says that you can still use the general licence if the sentence you received for your wildlife crime was an ‘admonishment’. Talk about a get-out clause! You might think this modification was quite reasonable, after all, an admonishment (effectively a telling off) is only given for minor offences, right? WRONG!!! Because there aren’t any mandatory sentences for wildlife crime offences in Scotland, a sheriff can choose a sentence at will (within the boundaries of sentencing limits at a Sheriff court, of course). In 2010, a sheriff imposed an admonishment on Graham Kerr, a gamekeeper on the Redmyre Estate, for possession of the banned pesticides Carbofuran and Alphachloralose (see here). The maximum penalty available was a £5000 fine and/or a six month prison term, reflecting the gravity of this type of offence. Had Kerr not also been handed a £400 fine for shooting a buzzard on the Redmyre Estate, his admonishment would have allowed him to continue using the general licence to operate a crow cage trap. In our opinion this is outrageous. What’s the point of having a condition of a five-year ban for a wildlife criminal if that condition is modified based on the whim of a sheriff’s sentencing choice rather than the nature of the actual criminal offence committed? It’s total nonsense. Why was this modification added to the terms of the general licence and who instigated its inclusion in 2009 and who approved it? Was anyone given the opportunity to object to its inclusion? Perhaps a Freedom of Information request is called for here…

This leads on to another concern…who is actually monitoring the trap operators? How do we know that someone with a recent criminal conviction (who was given a stronger sentence than an admonishment) is not still operating a crow cage trap? We know that many estates don’t sack their gamekeepers following a wildlife crime conviction, and we know of at least one estate where a previously convicted gamekeeper (guilty of raptor persecution) is now employed as a ‘gardener’!!

The potential for the misuse of crow traps is well known amongst raptor workers.  Previous reports on this issue have been produced by the RSPB (e.g. see here). Although this 2004 report is now fairly dated and some of the report’s recommendations have since been implemented, there is still a great deal of concern that crow traps are still being deliberately used to target raptor species, particularly buzzards and goshawks and in some areas, golden eagles.

So what can we do about it? In Part 3 we’ll explain the basics of what makes a crow cage trap legal, what makes one illegal, and the blurred line in between the two. We’ll also explain what members of the public should and shouldn’t do if you find a crow trap that you suspect is being operated illegally.

Crow traps: what you should know part 1

Without even the tiniest weeniest hint of irony, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association is complaining about ‘criminal activity in the countryside’ in reference to the recent alleged release of crows from a trap on a Scottish sporting estate.

Oh and it gets better…. according to the SGA, in response to this criminal activity Northern Constabulary has “issued an appeal for information”. Although we should point out that we’ve been unable to find any public record of this ‘appeal for information’ so we only have the SGA’s word to rely upon. But let’s assume the SGA is telling the truth…

Is this the same Northern Constabulary who apparently failed to fully investigate the suspected decapitation and shooting of a white-tailed eagle on Skye (see here) and the discovery of a poisoned red kite on the boundary of Skibo Estate (see here)?

That’s not the end of the irony either – the SGA goes on to suggest that cameras could be installed at crow traps, presumably to film any member of the public who may be inclined to interefere with the trap (which may amount to a criminal offence). Wouldn’t it be interesting to see whether that film footage would be considered as acceptable evidence in any subsequent prosecution, especially after recent film footage showing the activities of a Scottish gamekeeper using a stick to beat crows to death inside a crow trap on a Speyside sporting estate (see here), was deemed inadmissable evidence?

One rule for one but not the other? Surely not!

In light of the SGA’s recent one-sided promotion of crow traps and their encouragement to SGA members to report suspected trap interference (see here for their article) as well as the landowners’ representative body, Scottish Land and Estates, encouraging their members to do likewise (see here), we thought it only fair that we provide an alternative view on the use (and more importantly the mis-use) of crow traps on Scottish sporting estates and give the public the neccessary information about how to recognise the difference between a legal and an illegal trap, and what to do if you find an illegal one.

Watch this space…

2012 wildlife crime conference: Des Thompson (SNH)

This is the fifth blog in the series focusing on presentations made at the recent police wildlife crime conference in Scotland, this time from Des Thompson, Policy and Advice Manager at Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH is the government’s statutory advisory body on nature conservation, paid for by our taxes).

Des Thompson, SNH

Well, good, good morning and thank you, thank you Nevin [Hunter], er, I must say it’s been terrific to, to meet Nevin and to, to work with him already and Charlie [Everitt] as well, what a, what a remarkable difference, we’re seeing a real step change in the work we’re doing to tackle, er, wildlife crime. And I’d also publicly like to pay tribute to Brian [Stuart], who’s, as Head of National Wildlife Crime Unit has been a fantastic person to work with him, a great enthusiast and became a very good friend and I was delighted to see that he got a special award recently so well done Brian.

I’m slightly apprehensive, er, being in front of you all, especially with a, a sheriff sort of sitting in front of me and that civil servant glowering at me, erm, because I’m, I’m primarily going to talk about, about natural history and to explain to you the work we’re doing on birds of prey in Scotland, how we’re developing some, some area profiles but really how we’re trying to develop our understanding, er, of what makes, er, birds of prey tick and the factors affecting them, and you’ll see here I’ve acknowledged a huge number of people who have helped out. Oh they’re wonderful birds, I mean, I knew Charlie would show some nice, nice photos because he’s a superb photographer so I thought I had to show, lovely picture of an osprey here, er, they are wonderful birds and today what I want to do is to, to introduce the raptors to you, to tell you how we’re developing the evidence base on raptors, and giving some examples from work we’re doing on golden eagles, hen harriers and red kites, and finishing off with some thoughts on, on next steps and some, some wider issues that you might wish to, to discuss further.

Huge number of people have worked on birds of prey in Scotland, in fact in Europe our birds of prey are probably better studied in Scotland than anywhere else. We’ve a fantastic pedigree of research, P.K. Stirling-Aird down in the bottom right-hand corner there, people like Adam Watson, the late Jeff Watson, erm, Ian Newton the top left-hand corner, Roy Dennis, huge number of people have contributed to our knowledge on birds of prey.

We have 19 species nesting in Scotland, we have some great causes célèbres species like the osprey, now we have more than 250 pairs which is quite remarkable, white-tailed eagle more than 55 pairs, red kites more than 200 pairs compared with 2,000 in the UK. Of course some of these birds are icons of Scotland, real icons of Scotland such as the golden eagle, of course some still recovering from pesticide and persecution impacts and a few of course are not just recovering, they’re expanding, certainly there when you think about buzzards.

A lot of the information we’re pulling together comes from Scottish Raptor Study Groups under the umbrella of the Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme, I think Charlie touched on this, it was formed by seven organisations back in 2002, building on the experience and expertise of around 300 volunteer fieldworkers in Scotland, and working with, er, Brian Etheridge the Raptor Monitoring Officer, wide range of parties here from the government agencies, SNH and JNCC, through to some of the prominent NGOs working with wildlife in Scotland such as the RSPB and the Scottish Ornithologists’ Club, and I’m delighted to say that the Forestry Commission will be joining us shortly.

It’s largely about cooperation, getting much better collaboration between parties, providing the robust information, evidence based on raptors, and maintaining high and uniform standards of data collection, analysis and reporting.

Sounds very simple but actually a huge amount of effort went in to forming the, this scheme in the first place, an example of a raptor worker checking on osprey nest here, and these, the are remarkable individuals these, these members, they collect data on numbers and distribution of raptors, breeding success, nesting success, clutch size chicks, reasons for failure, and often may cover the same area for ten years and therefore they have, er, really what I’d call a crucial knowledge, er, of their area and of the issues, the side range of issues affecting birds of prey.

And we have a phenomenal amount of data falling in to the scheme as a result of this, back in 2003 we had 3,500 records, these are individual records from raptor workers, through to not far off 5,000 records in 2010, and now we have more than 30,000 records on raptors in Scotland, which is a European record.

We produce annual reports, the data of course goes in august organisations such as the Rare Breeding Birds Panel, of course they’re used by SNH and government for a range of casework issues.

So let’s get in to some detail of what we’re doing. We’ve developed a number of, er, raptor conservation frameworks, er, notably for golden eagles and hen harriers, really trying to drill down to the factors affecting the viability of these birds at a regional scale. And yes, er, one of the issues we’ve identified is an association between some grouse moors, and, and poisoning of birds, of course the Minister today has touched on the newsflash, much better news, in 2011 reported today, great to see the lowest, er, recorded incidents of poisoning since 2006, think this does represent real progress but of course we need to be mindful that there are other forms of persecution.

Of the golden eagle conservation framework we identified problem areas for golden eagles. Some empty or abandoned territories, some struggling to be productive and really identifying the range of factors, er, identifying, er, affecting the birds.

We’ve been satellite-tagging the birds working closely with RSPB, er, Roy Dennis and Highland Wildlife Foundation and Natural Research, and these are the packs that are attached to the birds, these satellite tags are about the size of a pack of playing cards, and we get fantastic information on a monthly basis, here very sadly for Alma, er, young golden eagle tagged by Roy Dennis, where you can see the movements it made from October through to July, er, and, and very sadly, er, it ended up, ended up, er, dead, but hugely important information we can build on range use of these birds.

Er, I’ve shown this slide of, er, golden eagle flying in to a nest with, er, one sibling attacking another, er, this brilliant picture taken by Laurie Campbell, one of our very finest, er, wildlife photographers, he noticed, er, sitting in this hide every time a golden eagle, an adult here, it was a male here, flew in with prey item, the, er, older sibling, here, would attack, would attack the smaller young, younger sibling and eventually killed it. And I show this because what we are finding in the west of Scotland now is a very marked increase in rainfall, those of you who live in the west of Scotland won’t be er, surprised to hear this, but over the last 30, 35 years there’s been an, an almost doubling of rainfall in May, and the upshot of this for golden eagles is that these birds are finding it far harder, er, to find prey, in particular live prey and so we’re seeing, er, a greater incidence of these sorts of problems for golden eagles, we’re seeing significantly fewer twins being fledged from golden eagle nests.

So a variety of factors affecting golden eagles and we’re busy trying to develop the evidence base on these birds, this is a, a, very funny portrait painted by, er, Keith Brockie, developing our knowledge of the conservation status, range use and movements, survival rates and causes of death, we’re getting a lot of important information here from the satellite-tagged birds, and of course this is supporting the day to day casework that we’re doing on the effects of forest expansion on these birds, windfarms and persecution, because we’re building up a very accurate picture of the range use and habitat use by these birds.

Moving on to hen harriers, we published, er, last year a conservation framework for hen harriers, in Scotland only five out of 20 regions were at, er, had populations that were favourable, three of the regions good for hen harriers were also good for golden eagles, and we found persecution risk, er, and food shortage were two key constraints, er, acting on these birds and now we’re looking at these much more carefully.

I’m going so show some slides to indicate just how difficult it is to determine what’s happening to hen harriers, this is one of our largest, er, Special Protection Areas for hen harriers, south of Scotland the Muirkirk Uplands, and the North Lowther, erm, Uplands SSSI all make up this Special Protection Area, we monitor hen harriers and other birds, numbers and productivity, and if you look at the trend here, in red you’ve got, er, numbers of breeding birds and in blue you’ve got fledging success, and you can see there’s been sort of great variation in numbers of hen harriers and for fledging success, the number of fledged chicks produced, sort of two, er, declines, a decline down to 2000 and then up to 2003 and a decline down to 2010. But when you pull these areas apart, er, you look at the Muirkirk Uplands, SSSI one part, and you find that really there is variation in numbers but not the sort of decline we’re recording and there’s one major peak in the fledging success of the birds, and part of this may well be due to variation in vole numbers which go through a cycle. But then we look at, drill down to the North Lowther Uplands you see there has been a decline in numbers and there has been a decline in fledging success. And it shows really that you have to drill down to very specific areas to try and understand what’s happening, when we talk about downward trends we need to be careful in describing these downward trends, we need to be very specific. But we’re talking about the factors and here there’s a complexity of factors affecting hen harriers, actually predation by foxes and crows, prey availability, er, persecution and habitat deterioration, they’ve all been influencing these birds, and interestingly, with the decline in keepering on one estate down there, er, there appears to have been an increase in numbers of predators which is having an adverse effect on hen harriers.

On the line for us at SNH is the Special Protection Area is unfavourable, erm, that status is declining and that’s serious because that means we’re not making, meeting our conservation, er, targets.

So for hen harriers, there is of course a history of persecution because hen harriers prefer grouse moors over other habitat, but important to know, complex range of factors at play here, when in some areas actually effective control of foxes and crows may help the birds and it’s important for us to note that, and there’s a growing evidence base on the movements and population viability of these birds so again science is helping us.

The final example I want to give you is for red kites in the UK, and Charlie touched on this, and on the map here I’ve shown a number of release locations for red kites in the UK. And on the right-hand side a number of years since reintroduction from one to 17, and the population in the Chiltern Hills in the south and in north Scotland in the sort of north Highland area. Really the, the, the conditions in terms of prey base are very similar for these two areas but for some reason the Chiltern population has increased much better than in the north of Scotland. And we can look at a range of factors such as prey availability, productivity of birds in different areas, and when we look at north of Scotland we actually find that within Europe, north of Scotland is, is ranked 5th out of 25 areas that have been studied in detail, so really the north of Scotland population should be doing incredibly well because of the very rich prey base available to these birds.

Some quite excellent, er, science led by RSPB and Jen Smart in particular, has drilled down to look at the cause of mortality, er, in these birds, and there’s a whole range of factors, poisoning and other illegal practices, and of course collision, electrocution, a variety of natural causes, to build up a very clear understanding of what’s affecting these birds. And in a fairly recent paper in the scientific journal Biological Conservation they were able to quantify the relationship between persecution and the annual survival of birds, so for first-year birds they were able to say that the annual survival is 0.37, 37% of the birds survive, but in the absence of persecution it would be much higher, just over half of the birds would survive, they did this for second-year birds and for the other birds, building up a very precise understanding of what’s affecting these birds. And then by modelling the sort of persecution effects, er, on the red kites, they were able to show that the population at the moment is only bumping along at 50, but critically, if persecution was removed, if it was wiped out, then the population would be far higher, it would be up to about 350 pairs. And this is really a compelling example of how science is giving an insight into the effects of persecution here, and other factors affecting these birds. So 40% of the dead, just over 100 red kites were poisoned in north of Scotland, without poisoning we should have had 300 plus birds, poisoning of red kites in the north of Scotland is attracting a lot of criticism nationally, and we now know the location of the hotspots problem areas where red kites have been found, poisoned, and we’re working closely with the police to tackle this. And I want to put on record here how grateful we are to Northern Constabulary, er, senior staff at Northern Constabulary for meeting with us to discuss the scientific issues and for taking forward the very ambitious programme of work to tackle this problem.

So I’ve given you some examples of some work we’re doing on these birds of prey. We’re very keen to try and develop this further, really as a form of indicators, birds of prey are top of the food chain, they’re well surveyed in monitoring, we’ve got a mass of datasets, they may be good indicators of change, where birds of prey are missing, birds of prey such as peregrines say are missing, that, that, that can tell you something very important about the prey base and other conditions, the public of course, most of the public love to see and enjoy birds of prey, a lot of political interest in birds of prey, we saw that this morning from the Minister, and there is growing collaboration, notably through the PAW raptor group which Charlie took us through.

Well we’re trying to produce raptor trends for different regions of Scotland, we call them Natural Heritage Zones, just common regions of Scotland, for peregrine here now for these different regions in the Eastern Lowlands, the Border Hills, building up a very clear picture of how numbers are changing, for birds such as white-tailed eagle, huge amount of information for the different areas, we can build up a picture of trends in clutch size, brood size, numbers fledged, and therefore developing our understanding of what’s happening to these birds, and we’re trying to do this now for a whole range of species.

Charlie’s mentioned sort of persecution statistics, we have, er, pulled together a lot of information on persecution, that’s now sitting with the National Wildlife Crime Unit, er, and I want to say here it’s, it’s not our job, it’s not SNH’s job or the raptor workers’ job to pronounce on these data, that’s a matter for the National Wildlife Crime Unit and for the police and that’s why these data now sit with that unit.

So all of this is helping us with the area profile, and in particular we’re working very closely with the raptor priority group but of course we’re building up this picture of where there are problems. Since, er, Charlie showed a nice slide I wanted to show this as well without the writing, erm, you, you know, a golden eagle in a sort of north Highland landscape, what a fantastic picture.

So I want to finish with some concluding thoughts and I thought this would come across very clearly so I repeated the slide in black and white. I’ve got six thoughts here:

1. The evidence base is crucial, erm, it’s clear we need to be objective on issues and the area priority depends on that. I think actually from what we heard from, from Sheriff Drummond earlier on it is critical at all stages that we are objective, er, and we play strongly to the evidence base.

2. A lot of talk about grouse moors. Grouse moors, really there’s huge variation in operations and practices on grouse moors. Let’s just remember, when people talk pejoratively about grouse moors, just remember there’s a huge amount of variation and the great majority of these are very well managed.

3. Predator management is important and there are some real benefits to be derived from predator management. If any of you were present at the ten year celebration of the Moorland Forum a couple of weeks ago, Stuart Housden gave a very important presentation and in that presentation he quite deliberately pointed to the work that the RSPB is pulling together to show the benefits of predator management. I think it’s important that we, we move on with predator management and we recognise that predator management can be important for a whole range of bird species.

4. The traditions of grouse moor management will persist. Let’s focus on the positives. I am fed up of colleagues and others saying to me, ‘Why are you worrying about grouse moor issues and the persecution issue, grouse moors won’t exist in five or ten years time’. Nonsense. Grouse moors, grouse moors will be with us for as long as we have Scotland. They will persist for centuries, not just decades and we need to remember that and focus on the positives associated with good management of grouse moors.

5. Scrutiny of management practices, er, Nevin and Charlie touched on this, the need for self-regulation and vicarious liability.

6. My final plea really is that we need to think out of the box and I like to think this is what we are doing in the PAW raptor group. I mean we’ve got, Charlie listed the individuals, some of the early meetings were quite difficult, they were quite fraught and as we’ve developed trust in one another and in the data that we’re dealing with, we are mindful that we have common objectives here, and frankly, and I say this deliberately, I think we’ve never had a better chance to eradicate, er, raptor persecution in Scotland, so thank you very much.”

[What a very revealing presentation. Last July we blogged about SNH’s stated intent to work more closely with GWCT and we asked whether this collaboration should be a cause for concern (see here). Listening to Des’s characteristic simpering flattery during this presentation it now seems very clear that those concerns were justified.

Yes he did acknowledge that persecution was an issue for golden eagles, hen harriers and red kites (how could he not, seeing as SNH commissioned two studies on golden eagle and hen harrier and both studies concluded persecution was the main issue?!) but what was interesting was how he then tried to shift the focus away from persecution when he was discussing the problems faced by golden eagles and hen harriers. The uninformed members of the audience might well now think that rainfall is the main constraint on overall golden eagle survival and that fox and crow predation is responsible for the ‘disappearance’ of over 2,000 harriers. Yes it’s accurate to suggest that rainfall may be impacting on golden eagle productivity in the western regions, but it has not been shown to be responsible for the ~ 273 empty known or potential golden eagle territories in the northern, central, eastern and southern regions; persecution has! In fact, the golden eagle conservation framework identified that only 3 of 16 regions in Scotland were of favourable conservation status for the golden eagle, and all of those regions were in the west! The framework identified the highest national priority for the conservation and management of golden eagles in Scotland is to tackle persecution. The promotion of a greater availability of live prey in western regions (through changed land management practices relating to deer and sheep) was only a secondary priority, so why focus on it in this presentation, unless Des was keen to deflect attention away from the continuing persecution issue on northern, central, eastern and southern grouse moors?

It was also a concern to hear Des suggest that the buzzard population was not recovering (from previous persecution) but rather it was now expanding (based on what data?). Given that SNH are now in charge of issuing licences for the ‘control’ (killing) of ‘pest’ species, and the mounting pressure from the game shooting lobby for licences to kill ‘problem’ buzzards, are we now looking at the strong possibility that these buzzard licences will be issued? It will be interesting to see how SNH can justify the killing of a relatively uncommon, and protected, native species in favour of a relatively abundant, non-native, unprotected species (e.g. pheasant).

We’re incredulous to hear Des trying to convince us that the vast majority of grouse moors are ‘very well managed’ when we know, after decades of what he calls an ‘evidence base’ (i.e. scientific publications) that these areas are directly linked to the mass destruction of native wildlife, and not just illegal raptor persecution, we’re also talking about the legal killing of hundreds of thousands of other animals, all to produce artificially high numbers of game birds which are then shot for sport by a ‘privileged’ few. If that’s the marker that SNH uses as the standard for nature conservation in Scotland then there isn’t much of a future to look forward to, is there?]

2012 wildlife crime conference: Stewart Stevenson (Scottish Government)

This is the fourth blog in the series focusing on presentations made at the recent police wildlife crime conference in Scotland, this time from Stewart Stevenson MSP, the Scottish Environment Minister. The following comprises the first two thirds of his presentation; the final third isn’t really relevant here.

Stewart Stevenson, Scottish Environment Minister

[Some jovial preamble that isn’t relevant here]…”This conference doesn’t, er, stand in a vacuum, it’s, er, carrying on from terrific effort over many years to create what is in effect, er, the biggest and most successful, er, wildlife, er, crime event in the UK and I’m sure that under the new management we’ll see, er, us building on past successes in that regard.

And of course, wildlife crime is something which in resource terms is comparatively small, er, in, in the, in the big picture so many people in this room and beyond who are engaged in fighting wildlife crime are doing so as an addition to, er, broader responsibilities, er, that, that constitute regular, er, day jobs and indeed many, er, make huge contribution in unpaid work outside hours, er, to get the job done, get the results and get the convictions, er, that are very important in sending out the right kind of messages, er, to people involved in, er, wildlife crime, but of course again as the Assistant Chief Constable made reference to, it’s often the case, er, that the Mr Bigs of our crime networks, erm, are engaged in wildlife crime, there’s correlation when you look at the maps often between where the Mr Bigs live and clear demonstration of wildlife crime, er, taking place in an area and unlike their activities as Mr Bigs, protected behind lawyers and accountants, really Boards of Management, their engagement perhaps in wildlife crime is, is less protected and may often be a very good way of getting into criminal, criminal networks and more broadly disrupting them so I hope that, er, when the police make operational decisions, because it’s only for me to seek to persuade but not to direct, er, that that is, er, part of the, the, the thinking.

I’ve been the Minister for Environment and Climate Change for coming up for a year now and I’m absolutely gobsmacked as I go across Scotland by the, the work that’s going on in the environment generally, whether it’s conservation work on red squirrels, whether it’s protecting our small number of capercaillies, whether it’s innovative technologies out to produce cleaner sources of fuel, it’s all based on the commitment of dedicated individuals and we in government are immensely, er, proud that people make that commitment and very grateful indeed.

Now this is the first, er, Tulliallan conference since the passage of the Wildlife and Natural Environment Bill in 2011, the Act does contain, er, a number of new provisions that are very relevant to this conference and I know that, er, the Sheriff for example will be explaining the WANE Act, er, a bit later, I’m not over-egging the pudding, Sheriff, I hope, erm, I, er, won’t be able to, to listen to it myself but then I’m not part of the enforcement agency. There was a passionate debate in Parliament about many aspects of it and I think at the end of the day we achieved, er, a good and equitable balance, there was a huge cross-party support, er, for the final form that it took. But the passage of that Bill is a very clear indication, er, that Parliament, er, takes an important view of this and, er, the, the, the importance that, er, the BBC Radio Scotland this morning gave to this conference and the publication, er, of, erm, the poisoning figures for, er, raptors shows that the media see this as an important agenda as well.

The new legislation, er, a number of things are relevant to this conference, comprehensive revision of the law relating to game and the poaching of game, new closed seasons for hares, new regulations for snares, a major revision of the Deer Act backed up by a new code of practice, a new approach to invasive non-native species, I’ll just say a little something, one of the things I tripped over, just to illustrate, er, the issue of invasive non-native species…[goes into anecdote about American Signal Crayfish]…There’s new offences, a new code of practice to come on, on this regard, and there’s a new requirement that we provide an annual report to Parliament on wildlife crime.

Now, I’m not going to talk through the legislation, others are better equipped to do that. There are officials here from the Scottish Government who’ll be happy to interact with you, er, on the subject. But let me just pick up a couple of issues from it – during the course of the Bill it was apparent that there was a prevailing feeling among MSPs that we needed to take some tougher legal powers to combat the problem of illegal raptor persecution in Scotland. Er, it’s been a high priority since we took office, it is of course an issue that not only threatens some of our rarest wildlife such as the hen harrier, but it casts a disproportionately unpleasant shadow on our reputation as a country known for its high quality natural environment. The environment is a key part of our identity, it’s part of our brand and it’s vital to our export success, er, in many ways and of course wildlife tourism is a very important economic contributor.

So, the concept of an attractive, well-managed, er, natural environment can be badly damaged by any idea that it’s a place where some people can still put out dangerously toxic materials to poison some of our more spectacular wildlife. And of course, when you put poisons out in the environment, you never know what the effect will be; a dog walker can be exposed to them, domestic animals can be poisoned and indeed human beings without knowing, er, what’s going on. It is a tiny minority but it disproportionately, er, scars, er, our landscape so we’re continuing to work with our partners in PAW to change attitudes, make that minority even smaller in future, and eventually see it disappear.

So part of our response has been to introduce vicarious liability, er, provisions. There are two aspects to that. That small minority in the past of land managers who may have given a nod and a wink to their employees in relation to persecution of birds of prey, that addresses that issue, those who turn their back on doing the right thing. But now there is no doubt that their behaviour will not escape the reach of the law, they risk finding themselves in the dock as well as the unfortunate employee, the gamekeeper, whoever.

The second aspect is probably more important in the long run. We want to send a message to all land managers that inaction, benign or otherwise, is simply not good enough. Land managers need to be proactive in ensuring all employees and contractors understand legal obligations and responsibilities, they have to take all reasonable steps and exercise due diligence. And I want to pay a tribute to Scottish Land and Estates, because they have been very supportive in getting that message out, working with government, er, to develop guidance for land managers. So this is not about the industry as a whole being a problem, quite the opposite, they are a huge contributor, er, to determining best practice, to getting the message out, achieving a proportionate and proper legal balance between the many interests that there are in, in, in the country and they’ve been enormously helpful. It is just a tiny minority, and they want to see them eliminated as much as everyone else, er, does.

We’re certainly not looking for a string of prosecutions, indeed, I will measure success if there are none, because that would be absolutely ideal in a context of, of good behaviours in, in our countryside. Sustained improvement, proactive management, especially in areas that we’ve identified as being at high risk where previous history show there’s been bird or prey prosecution, we know that this is one of a range of measures in itself it doesn’t, er, solve the problems.

Now I don’t want to just speak about, er, raptor persecution, a couple of, er, other aspects of, of the work that I want to speak about, the first is the annual poisoning hotspots maps which are published today which show a significant reduction, er, in the number of birds, er, poisoned in the last year, and that’s very, very welcome but there’s still too many, er, it’s not necessarily an inescapably a long-term trend although the suggestions are that it probably is. We want to get to a position where it’s zero, ah, we’re not quite there yet. Partnership working is an important part of making sure that we get the outcomes, the input of the RSPB and Scottish Land and Estates working together give this annual exercise and reporting credibility, demonstrates that shared commitment that’s going to make a real difference, and I particularly like when I see the pack that you have as delegates to have material from RSPB and Scottish Land and Estates, showing that shared commitment, er, to this agenda.

Second, er, raptor related point, just to say something about the success of the Raptor Persecution Priority Delivery Group, it’s been working extremely well and I thank Alan Smailes, formerly of Grampian Police, my local police force, for his tireless commitment and role, he brought energy and frankness to the group and made, er, a real difference. Since, er, Alan’s recent retirement, Superintendent Ewen West from Tayside has taken over the reigns and continues where Alan left off. Real progress is being made, er, as meetings are held usually every six weeks, er, with excellent attendance. There are some developments in the pipeline in the group that have the potential to have a real impact on, on unlawful raptor pred persecution and again it’s partnership working that will make the real difference.”

[On the whole Stewart did quite well, and when you compare his attitude to that of his counterparts in England, he is streets ahead in that he at least acknowledges that raptor persecution is a problem. However, this oft-repeated insistence that raptor persecution is only being carried out by a ‘tiny minority’ is simply not supported by the facts.

There was also concern about his apparent brown-nosing of SLE that didn’t quite fit in with the fact that his government introduced vicarious liability specifically because they recognised that many land owners and land managers are often the instigators of illegal raptor persecution (if it was just a tiny minority then surely the government wouldn’t have bothered with all the hassle of introducing new legislation to combat it). In an interview on BBC Radio Scotland on the morning of the conference, Stewart took every opportunity to promote SLE and in doing so, carefully side-stepped some rather well-informed questions from the interviewer. See here for the full transcript recently posted on the SLE website. He also seems to have conveniently forgotten the communication he had last autumn with SLE Director Lord Hopetoun, who seemed to have a different view to Stewart about the benefit of vicarious liability legislation – see here].

The next instalment in this series will focus on the presentation given by Des Thompson (SNH), who also has an apparent aversion to criticising land owners.

Head, sand, buried

Yesterday we blogged about the availability of the written evidence submitted to the UK parliament’s audit on wildlife crime (see here).

Today we’ve read all the written evidence and our expectations of who might have said what were fully met. Although there’s no substitute for reading things for yourself and drawing your own conclusions, there were a few things that stood out…

One common theme was the use of RSPB vs NWCU (National Wildlife Crime Unit) raptor persecution statistics, with groups such as the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation and the Moorland Association claiming that only the NWCU figures should be used to determine the ‘true scale’ of the problem. The Countryside Alliance goes one step further and says that it objects to what it calls ‘scene-of-the-crime involvement of third party campaigning organisations and charities such as the RSPB’ and calls for urgent guidance to clarify ‘that all crimes and suspected crimes should be reported to the police’. No great surprises there – it’s the usual knee-jerk reaction to the RSPB, but what is interesting is that they forgot to mention just how unrepresentative the NWCU figures actually are! Why are they unrepresentative? Well according to the written evidence of the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPOS), not all police forces submit their wildlife crime data to the NWCU, and even if data have been submitted, it’s not always possible to identify which incidents were wildlife crimes as they are not allocated to a specific code! So yes, it is easy to see why these groups want to get rid of the RSPB stats and replace them with the NWCU figures!

Another point of interest was a statement from the Moorland Association on hen harriers. We thought the second paragraph contained particularly sinister undertones:

The scale of crime against the hen harrier and its impact on the hen harrier population has been overstated and is misleading. A lack of breeding success on grouse moors does not automatically mean that laws have been broken. There are many, many more birds in England than four successfully nesting pairs, which can be seen over grouse moor during migration and at winter roost sites.

Until a full set of special rules allowing the positive management of hen harriers breeding on grouse moors is forthcoming from the Environment Council’s Hen Harrier Dialogue, moorland owners are within their rights and the law to deter the birds from settling on their moors to breed.”

We assume that ‘positive management’ in this context refers to either killing or otherwise removing (translocating) any harriers that are considered ‘surplus’ to an agreed acceptable number (known as a ‘ceiling’). We understand that the Environment Council is seriously considering a ‘ceiling’ on hen harrier numbers for grouse moors; a controversial and long-running argument that we’ll write about another time. But what does the Moorland Association mean when it says ‘moorland owners are within their rights and the law to deter birds from settling on their moors to breed’?

The other comment we found particularly interesting was one made by the Countryside Alliance:

The recent publication of out of date research into the breeding success of peregrine falcons on grouse moors is a further example of counterproductive allegations against shooting which resulted in misleading coverage in the media. As a result of this, the National Wildlife Crime Unit circulated a clarification to all Police Wildlife Crime Officers in the UK, and to all Partnership for Action Against Wildlife Crime members, in which it was drawn to the attention of those studying the research paper that the data used was out of date, and that in using such information there was a clear danger that the research paper might be misunderstood as representing the current situation, which it did not.”

The publication being referred to is the recent paper by Amar et al (2011) which showed that the breeding productivity of peregrines nesting on grouse moors in Northern England was 50% lower than the productivity of peregrines breeding on non-grouse moors (see here for earlier blog on this). Now, why would the NWCU feel it necessary to send an email to wildlife crime police officers and other PAW partners about how to interpret this paper? Did they think that these people were so stupid that they couldn’t read and understand the paper for themselves? Why did the NWCU think that the data used in the paper (collected between 1980-2006 from 141 nesting ranges) were unrepresentative of the current situation? Has the NWCU collected and analysed more recent data to demonstrate that the current situation is different? How does sending this email fit in with the NWCU’s stated primary role of ‘assisting in the prevention and detection of wildlife crime’? What sort of message does this email give to those involved with the fight against raptor persecution? Here is a peer-reviewed scientific publication in a prestigious journal that points directly to the significant relationship between grouse moors and raptor persecution. Isn’t this exactly the sort of publication that the NWCU’s Charlie Everitt was referring to in his speech at the recent wildlife crime conference when he said: “We’ve also been looking to the use of science to try and benefit from what science can deliver to us”?

The thing is that the data used in the paper were part of a long-term data set that clearly showed a trend in poor productivity (i.e. not a snap shot but a long-term picture over 26 years), and this trend also mirrored that of other studies that have shown a clear relationship between low raptor survival and grouse moors (go and read some of the golden eagle papers that have been produced over the last ten years). The NWCU appear to have missed this point in their scrabble to appease the grouse-shooting lobby; so much for their intelligence-led approach to combating raptor persecution, eh?

All the written evidence submitted to the audit committee so far can be read here.