Press release from the RSPB:
Another satellite tagged eagle has disappeared in highly suspicious circumstances. RSPB Scotland has today (17th April 2018) been assisting Police Scotland in the search for the white tailed eagle in the Glen Quaich area of Perthshire.
Duncan Orr-Ewing, Head of Species and Land Management at RSPB Scotland said: “This is the fourth satellite tagged eagle (three golden eagles and now one white-tailed eagle) to disappear in highly suspicious circumstances in this very area since 2014. This location around Glen Quaich is dominated by driven grouse moor estates, and has been highlighted previously as a ‘black hole’ for wildlife crime against raptors.
A report published by the Scottish Government last May, prompted by the regular disappearance of satellite-tagged eagles, provided unequivocal evidence that the sudden disappearance of these birds when reliable tags suddenly stop transmitting is highly suspicious.
This is the third of five white-tailed eagle chicks to have fledged from the first successful nest in East Scotland – the product of a Scottish Government-sponsored reintroduction project – to have disappeared in such circumstances, suggesting it has also been illegally killed.
We call on the Scottish Government to introduce a robust licencing system for driven grouse shooting with sanctions for removal of licences where criminal patterns of behaviour are established to the satisfaction of the authorities. Those that obey the law and conduct their operations within it have nothing to fear from such a regulatory framework.”
Ends
[registration_form]
…the third of five white-tailed eagle chicks to have fledged from the first successful nest in East Scotland – the product of a Scottish Government-sponsored reintroduction project – to have disappeared in such circumstances…
Just cutting and pasting those words made me pause for breath…
Will the DGS lobby will put forward an argument that they may have been predated by a larger raptor? A Roc, perhaps…
It is clearly time that DGS, with its absolute dependence on wildlife crime, is ended.
I’m not sure that RSPB either understand the law or ‘get it, where illegal persecution of raptors is concerned.
The RSPB say “with sanctions for removal of licences where criminal patterns of behaviour are established to the satisfaction of the authorities.” Anybody with half an ounce of common sense and a basic understanding of the law will see that is hopeless.
Who are ‘the authorities’? The RSPB do not say. How do you establish ‘criminal patterns of behaviour’ WITHOUT successful prosecutions?
This is all wishful-thinking from a woolly-minded organisation.
The key to a successful licensing system is the REQUIREMENT of shooting estates to demonstrate a fully biodiverse environment, including sustainable water management. It is NOT trying to ‘prove’ to ‘authorities’ what has been failing for decades: that shooting estates kill all predators, along with many other species.
It shouldn’t even NEED criminal behaviour to be proven or suspected to question the viability of shooting estates: it should simply be a REQUIREMENT of their existence that such estates must be able to demonstrate a fully biodiverse environment (ie. they must be able to regularly show that their activities are not suppressing, or tending to suppress, any of the flora and fauna which would inhabit their estates. No criminal prosecutions are necessary: just regular audits of their wildlife.)
Keith – while I am no great fan of licensing (because I think it will fail) I think you are being unfair and haven’t got a good answer either.
As the shooting community point out, there are some RSPB nature reserves, and NT properties, and I guess some Wildlife Trust nature reserves, which lack birds of prey such as Hen HArriers, Peregrines etc. This isn’t because they are killed on those sites, it is because the general area has such intense persecution that nothing survives to get to nest on those sites. And in the case of HH, even if a pair somehow gets through, the male often mysteriously disappears when away from the guarded nest site. So the lack of some elements of flora or fauna doesn’t really cut it as a way of identifying the bad guys does it? Was that what you meant?
But Mark, that’s only the situation now. If you made occupancy by breeding birds of prey one of the requirements of licensing, then don’t you think that these estates and all of the RSPB, NT and Wildlife Trust reserves would mysteriously be re-colonised very quickly?
Hugh – I don’t think that condition would ever get through the process to end up as a licensibng condition. We all tend to think that any new legislation would be just as we want it to be – but it is always a cack-handed compromise of some sort, and in this area the anti-raptor brigade have quite a strong voice.
Unless I am very much mistaken, Mark, Ed made exactly my point about the conditions required for licensing to work.
In fact, put that the other way round: I am supporting the point(s) first made by Ed!
There is no point in saying “I don’t think that condition would ever get through the process” because that is an assumption which defeats the purpose. (By the way, there is more than one such condition required for licensing to work.)
We KNOW that successful prosecutions are very difficult because the criminal acts appear to take place on private land without any witnesses. We have decades of experience to KNOW that.
Therefore, for licensing to work, it must be of a kind which places a REQUIREMENT on shooting estates to prove that they are not limiting biodiversity or adversely effecting drainage. The licensing must also be of a kind which enables regular wildlife audits to take place without intimidation.
My understanding is those were the kind of licensing conditions Ed had in mind. If implemented, they would either restore our uplands to hold the levels of biodiversity experts would expect – and without threatening settlements with flooding or contaminating water supplies – or the shooting estates would lose their license.
Those are precisely the conditions which the RSPB should be fighting for, both here and in Scotland.
As a matter of ethics, I am opposed to all wildlife shooting for ‘sport’. But with the ‘correct’ conditions applied, licensing would at least restore uplands wildlife.
Maybe, certain forms of shooting would become unviable under such conditions? Who knows?
But what we do know is that licensing based purely on successful prosecutions for illegal killing does not make those prosecutions any more likely (Or, does it? What is proposed to make successful prosecutions more likely?), and therefore is UNLIKELY to advance wildlife or water issues on our uplands.
The same deceptions around shooting estates would continue…
Keith – I’m all for trying licensing – that’s why I have signed Ed’s e-petition and supported John Armitage’s petition on the same subject all those years ago. I’m just telling you what will happen. we’ll see whether I am right if it happens.
Another marvellous bird probably paying the illegal price of driven grouse shooting. Personally I favour a ban but even under licencing Keith the burden of proof should be less than required for a successful prosecution more the level required for civil cases. Although having said that, this is the same for general licence restrictions and there are precious few of those.
I am appalled that the killing of protected Birds of Prey and other creatures seems to be difficult to find those who are to blame. I am not convinced that the Scottish Government is really trying hard enough to finally put an end to this flagrant contempt for the law.
There are some of us who can go back over fifty years of campaigning for the humane treatment of animals and the protection of wildlife. The same mobsters are there as large as life, prevailing over the law and a majority public opinion, to make life more favourable for living creatures. I have seen the rise in numbers who are members of animal protection groups, along with the numbers of charities operating on a world scale to save the environment/habitats of species facing extinction. This concern makes those defying the law to give protection to endangered creatures, stand out in bold relief. I hope the day will come when the mass of the people decide to intervene and remove such a cancer from our country. That cancer has metastasised into many forms, and requires equivalent solutions, but what should be appreciated is that only eradication from power of those inflicting suffering on our Birds of Prey and other creatures, and a forever installation of laws with powerful back-up enforcement, will bring peace to our countryside; a countryside free of subservience to outdated blood sport practices, and a legal system unclogged with ways for the offenders to get away unpunished. The Scottish Government clings to any economic activity that contributes anything from a big bawbee to a wee bawbee, as job creators and contributors to our National Income. Time to show that shooting estates lands can have alternative uses, and these can contribute more the economic growth and better paid employment, or if some run with less savagery, can be part of a multi-activity landscape with conservation at its heart.
I concur. The ecotourism money can more than make up for the little lost if shooting was removed. Plus that money would be more even distributed rather than ending up in the pocket of an already wealthy large land owner. Agricultural subsidies should also be removed from these estates, the put little back in terms of produce.
These estates need to move on from these archaic Victorian methods of management. Killing anything for fun simply isn’t acceptable now.
Well said Mr H. Just to let you know that when petition PE1663 to ask the Scottish Government to commission a full and independent study into the real economic value of driven grouse shooting was current practically every single organisation representing the interests of grouse moor owners and employees was asked to sign and promote the petition if they were confident in their claims that DGS was vital for rural jobs. Not one did. Not the Scottish Gamekeeper’s Association (or the NGO), not Scottish Land and Estates, not GWCT or the Countryside Alliance either north or south of the border, not the BASC and certainly not any of the seven Moorland Groups in Scotland that churn out DGS propaganda. The petition was mentioned on this blog and by Raptor Persecution UK, but the other side said absolutely nothing as if it didn’t exist. The next time one of these groups tell us how wonderful DGS is for local economies it is worth asking why they didn’t take the opportunity to promote PE1663 which would surely have helped make their claims more credible? I do so repeatedly and have yet to get an answer, anyone reading this please do so too which is why I’ve mentioned this yet again. The only thing keeping DGS afloat politically is the idea that if it’s taken away jobs will be lost and families will be out on the street. It’s a powerful image and it frightens a lot of politicians and the public and even some in the conservation/environmental community from being against DGS, but it’s the other way round it’s driven people away and made those who’ve stayed poorer, lucky if they get a few days beating as a temporary escape from the dole and for a bit of Xmas money. Even those MPs that crawled out of the woodwork at the Westminster ‘debate’ on banning DGS on behalf of their pals to stick up for it, won’t do so if that’s seen to mean lost business opportunities and jobs in the uplands. Their claims are a lie and they know it which makes them even more contemptible.
The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) currently says there are three central pillars to be considered equally for any development: economic, social and environmental. The reality under this govt (and to some extent under any govt) is that the economic imperative takes massive precedence, with lip service to the others. The same will apply to grouse moors and pretty much anything else where ‘the establishment’ hold sway. Changing that will be a massive job that will take a massive groundswell of ordinary people to do it, but it can be done – plastic is a good example currently. Don’t hold your breath though!
Can we say ‘x’ marks the spot where the bird stopped transmitting and when, to then provide a short-list of who exactly are the named individuals holding forearms licences that have permission to work said land/estate?
I realise this doesn’t prove very much and eliminate rogues who don’t have permission to be shooting anything on said land but if this information is mandated each time a bird is lost, over time surely patterns will start to emerge?
I know I am probably sounding naive in assuming estates would conform and show honesty but I also wouldn’t mind betting that there are those on the ground who are local to these areas that have some strong intelligence towards knowing full-well who those breaking the law and killing the BoP are?
Hey… there’s no “Reply” button underneath your comment, so I am ‘replying’ here…
“Keith – I’m all for trying licensing – that’s why I have signed Ed’s e-petition and supported John Armitage’s petition on the same subject all those years ago. I’m just telling you what will happen. we’ll see whether I am right if it happens.”
All I can say, in that case, is that you must know something I do not!
I have fought losing battles, but I have never volunteered defeat. The RSPB must campaign for licensing conditions which depend upon outcomes (biodiversity, water management, regular surveys) and not upon convictions alone.
I would regard the latter as volunteering defeat, because I hear no proposals which could make successful prosecutions easier. It would be the same old same old. A waste of everybody’s time.
But I am intrigued why you think a vigorous campaign by the RSPB on licensing conditions based upon ‘outcomes’ (Christ! I sound like some management speak-freak!) would never be adopted?
Is it because they might actually work, and Defra would never allow that?
In which case, isn’t it all the more important those are EXACTLY the type of conditions we should be campaigning for?