This is the best report the RSPB has produced on illegal killing of birds of prey. Well done them!
This report considers only Scotland and only over three years but this was a time of many important cases and many important scientific findings.
The content will be familiar to many who read this blog and even more so to those who read the Raptor Persecution UK blog, but what is different in this report is the determined tone of the RSPB. This is an advocacy report, rather than a report merely reporting what has happened, and it has a bite to it.
Whether the RSPB has finally got the bit between its teeth (in Scotland at least) or whether the new Director of Scotland, Anne McCall, has sharpened things up, I don’t know, but this is the RSPB on a mission (or at least that’s how I read it).
The report’s destination is licensing of shooting estates and the information in this report sets out, clearly, the need to do more than is in place at the moment in order to remove the stain of wildlife crime against protected raptors from the Scottish scene, especially the upland scene, and especially the driven grouse moor scene.
I hope that this report is widely read, but in case you don’t get around to it (you should!) here are some of my favourite quotes.
… in our view, driven grouse shooting must now be made more publicly accountable and effectively regulated through a licensing scheme,
with sanctions to remove licences where wildlife laws are not respected
One can only question the motives of those representatives of the grouse shooting industry who continue to attack satellite tagging and the credentials of those who fit them, while at the same time claiming that crimes against birds of prey are on the wane. At the same time, there has been a concerted campaign of personal abuse of individuals or the smearing of organisations just for campaigning against wildlife crime.
The recent establishment of the various “Moorland Groups” and the linked industry campaign “The Gift of Grouse” are a concerted attempt to improve the appalling reputation of driven grouse shooting. This is doomed to fail as long as some within the sector continue to trap, poison or shoot our eagles, kites and hen harriers. And, they will do that because they can, because it’s expected of them and because there is very little chance they will get caught.
The driven grouse shooting industry is having a disproportionate impact on our landscapes, our upland ecosystems and our wildlife, and has done so for many decades. It has also been responsible for the killing of huge numbers of protected birds of prey through poisoning, nest destruction, shooting and trapping.
The report’s recommendations are good and are as follows:
Driven grouse shooting estates should be licenced, with the right to shoot dependent on legal, sustainable management practices. Recognised best practice should be linked to an effective system subject to periodic updating to take account of the findings of new research. Public as well as private interests should be properly reflected in any such system.
The Scottish Government should fund a structured programme of satellite tagging of birds of prey, notably golden and white-tailed eagles, hen harriers and red kites. Satellite tagging of birds of prey provides significant evidence as to where raptor persecution is occurring regularly, but is also a deterrent to those wishing to use illegal poisons in the countryside.
Suspicious disappearances of satellite-tagged birds of prey should be included in government wildlife crime reports, and included as evidence during consideration of general licence restrictions.
The exchange of information between statutory agencies, for assessment in cases considered for general licence restrictions, should be streamlined and sped up significantly. Provision of evidence by third parties to assist in this process should be considered on a case by case basis.
The Scottish Government should bring in legislation to ensure that an individual’s presence on land for the purpose of obtaining evidence of crime should not be excluded from access rights.
The admissibility of video footage of alleged wildlife crime incidents should be determined by a court. However, video evidence of an alleged wildlife crime, obtained where there was no compromise of an individual’s European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 right to privacy should be admissible by default.
Confirmed wildlife crime incidents should be publicised as soon as suspects for the crime are likely to be aware an investigation is underway. This is particularly important when there is a threat
to public health and safety.
This is the report of an organisation confident about its facts and about what it believes. It is very much to be welcomed.
But it has to be said that there is nothing similar that has been produced south of the border where the issues are just the same even if the political climate is less welcoming. The RSPB has upped its game in Scotland, I look forward to seeing the same down here, please.
I’m still reading the report. I downloaded it from RPUK. I’m subscribed to most RSS feeds the RSPB has, but did not receive it, and could not locate a copy of it on the RSPB website.
I’m trying to be as active as possible in support of the RSPB, ignoring fundraising efforts. The RSPB tells me to improve my garden for wildlife, and sometimes, but not enough, I’m directed to complete consultations. You do a much better job in that regard.
As an RSPB member who supports the RSPB, I am only too aware of how much more the members could do in support of the organisation. Surely there is someone in RSPB who could point out internally what more could be done. I’m happy to point it out, bearing in mind and recognising all the limitations which they face, but clearly at present they do not want to know how much more the members could contribute.
What little I have read of the report so far seems to show a more determined air, and I welcome that, at least.
Having now read the report in its entirety, I remain confused as to how licensing is expected to work. The RSPB point out that vicarious liability has failed to work in all but a few cases. The report makes clear just how difficult it is to bring the criminals to justice, and how few of these crimes are actually identified. How is licensing supposed to improve this situation?
If licensing is introduced, the grouse moor owners will breath a long sigh of relief knowing they can carry on as normal for the next twenty years. The only other thing living alongside red grouse will be red herrings.
Ban it.
I agree with Alex that its increasingly hard work to find any meaningful content on conservation websites – National Trust is even worse. As he says, you have to fight your way past endless soft stories and fundraising. It is quite impossible to find out anything meaningful about RSPBs financial problems – the latest nature’s Home manages to completely avoid the fact that RSPB is shedding 1/5th of its staff. Perhaps the message that boats can sink even if you don’t rock them may be filtering through to some of the ‘steady as she goes’ conservation leaders.
It may exist, but it would be really interesting to see an annotated map of where raptor tags have disappeared – with the estate name, landowner & sporting agent. Perhaps estates with a powerful record of lost tags might have to undergo several years of quarantine before they were allowed a license ? rather than the assumption that everyone gets one and there is then a whittling down as raptors go down.
I’m really pleased that RSPB Scotland has shown some backbone over raptor persecution (although I still have zero confidence in any licensing scheme).
The question is, will they make a real effort to bring this excellent report to the attention of their members, or will it be seen only by the already committed few?
Would it be possible to find out how much it would cost to produce, say, a 4- or 8-page summary version with some photos and the main conclusions of the report, and send it out to all members with the next ‘Nature’s Home’ magazine? We could then maybe try to crowdfund the project. They seem to manage to include all manner of unsolicited marketing guff with each issue without any problems.
Another possibility might be to lobby for a separate category of RSPB membership, dedicated to producing materials and involving the more informed and committed members.
I’ve always been sceptical about licensing because I cannot believe that it will ever be robust enough because it will be poorly funded even if estates are made to pay a licence fee, which I doubt. I suppose if we were very lucky a licence system could incorporate the use of civil law, which of course requires a lower standard of proof but that could be fraught with legal issues. The rich landowners might go to court to plead innocence and tie presumably SNH up in legal costs. Banning would be far better but licensing may be a necessary step on the way even if it takes a long time. What we really need alongside such proposals is a much tougher stance from SNH with far more general licence withdrawals where crime is strongly suspected or a satellite tagged bird goes down– if it is on or near a boundary both estates get the penalty.
Licensing should be not only dependant on good behaviour but also if an estate has say a Peregrine, Eagle or Harrier nest site, suspicious failure must be enough for a licence suspension.
Incidentally I like this report and think it provides enough evidence for general licence restrictions to be put in place. Time RSPB generally took a much tougher line with these people with no holds barred.
In the longer term, but not that long, I favour a complete ban on driven grouse shooting. When the whinging and whining starts the answer is simple” you brought it on yourselves.”
I am in complete agreement with the RSPB document, but am dubious about the conclusions and remain to be convinced that licensing will work. I’d be happy if raptor persecution stopped, but don’t know if that would help greatly. It is strong, but what one could reasonably expect from the RSPB given the events of the past few years. I hope that it does not compromise their relationship with the police. It should not, as the police in Scotland probably feel the same way.
I had been reviewing the same matters covered in P15 of the document about “Dropped Cases” over a different matter. The RSPB said “In our opinion, it is bewildering that the balance seems to be so skewed as to give more weight to a wildlife conservation charity’s perceived “wrong” in the deployment of a camera monitoring a bird’s nest on a remote moor, than to a flagrant, deliberate
criminal act.”
This is strong, but my opinion is somewhat stronger, as I explained in a post to RPUK today. I will not repeat it here but this is covered in the latest two posts in the website linked to my name in the last weeks. I didn’t expect this strong statement from the RSPB. My best interpretation for the events relies on the saying that they “didn’t expect a Spanish Inquisition!”
Crown Counsel could never have expected that the decision would be as closely questioned as it was by the ECCLRC convener. Well done that man and that committee. It was just what was needed to expose this injustice.
It is my opinion that the scales of Justice in Scotland have been heavily imbalanced in favour of criminals in some cases of wildlife crime, this imbalance is unsupported by the existing legislation, and is a stain on the Scottish Justice system. The Scottish Justice system should have a means to cleanse this stain, without input from elsewhere. So far, it does not seem to have reacted.
Is there anyway to get an official hardcopy version of this? There are a few leave-a-book/take-a-book stalls around here I’d like to drop them off on.