Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 9th January 2009

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Landowners demand the right to kill birds of prey as numbers grow



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 05 August 2008
THE law should be changed to allow birds of prey to be killed by landowners when numbers grow out of control, according to a director of the Scottish Countryside Alliance.
The controversial suggestion has been made by Tim Baynes, moorlands director, who thinks numbers of some raptors, especially buzzards and goshawks, are becoming unmanageable.

He is worried protected or fragile species such as wading moorland birds
and red squirrels, as well as game birds, are at risk, particularly from buzzards because their numbers are increasing so rapidly.

However, the suggestion has been met with fierce criticism from RSPB Scotland.

Mr Baynes said: "It's an increasing problem as the number of buzzards and birds of prey goes up. We won't notice it for a couple of years and by the time it's obvious, it's too late.

"It needs the will to look at it as an ecological problem and see how many of these species can we tolerate if we want to have the other birds about. Moorland is a very fragile habitat."

Although it is possible for landowners to apply for a licence to control birds of prey to protect other species, none has ever been granted.

Usually rigorous evidence spanning five years is needed before such a licence would be granted.

Mr Baynes thinks the lack of flexibility in the law is leading some landowners to feel forced to take illegal action.

"Whenever people have applied for a licence to control buzzards they have been turned down," he said.

" There might be some people who think, 'What are we going to do?' They might resort to poisoning.

"It's totally wrong, but if the law is completely inflexible that may be a reason why it's happening. No-one wants to poison things, and it's a crime with quite a big ticket but there will be some people who think they have got no option."

Mr Baynes suggests one technique for controlling the birds could be to prick the eggs so they are unable to hatch.

Douglas McAdam, chief executive of the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association, agreed that the law needs to be changed.

"No single species should have more protection than any other species," he said. "We do not condone the breaking of the law in any shape or form but we make no secret of the fact we would like to see the law changed."

But Duncan Orr-Ewing, head of species and land management at RSPB Scotland, said it has taken 200 years for the buzzard population to recover from persecution during the Victorian period.

"History tells us and also the ecology of the birds tells us that allowing control of species such as raptors is not a good thing because they are quite vulnerable to increased mortality," he said.

"They are at the top of the food chain. If you remove them we know their populations are quite slow to recover."

He added that evidence shows that the main prey eaten by buzzards is rabbits, not vulnerable species.

Many hurdles before a licence to cull is granted

UNDER current laws, scrupulous evidence spanning five years is required before a licence would be granted for a cull of birds of prey on an estate owner's land.

Landowners have applied to Scottish Natural Heritage and the Scottish Government in the past for licences to control buzzards to protect pheasants and other species – but none has ever been granted.

However, permission has been given in some cases to cull ravens that are known to be killing lambs.

Under section 16 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act a long list of criteria must be met. These include:

• Evidence must be provided to prove wild birds are being attacked by the predator.

• Proof must be given that other non-lethal methods have been tried, such as putting up scarecrows.

• Consideration must be given to whether the impacts noticed are just due to normal cyclical variations. Red grouse populations go through cycles caused by changing conditions.

• Observations over five years must be provided to show a long-term decline in the threatened species.

Scottish Natural Heritage will then take all the evidence into consideration when forming an opinion as to whether control measures need to be put in place.

HOW YOU CAN HELP

The Scotsman is committed to helping the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals catch those responsible for illegally killing birds of prey and other wildlife.

Information about raptor poisonings and other incidents of wildlife crime can be passed to police via the National Wildlife Crime Unit in North Berwick on 01620 893607.





The full article contains 784 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 04 August 2008 9:52 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Birds of prey
 
1

Matt there,

somewhere 05/08/2008 00:52:39
Wait a minute! The other day someone said that no illegal killing of birds of prey was happening. Now someone else says it is!

And they are supposed to be on the same side! Blown that one, haven't you?
2

jerrymanders,

05/08/2008 01:48:14
"The controversial suggestion has been made by Tim Baynes, moorlands director, who thinks numbers of some raptors, especially buzzards and goshawks, are becoming unmanageable."

Goshawks are woodland birds not moorland ones. Still it doesn't matter, anything with a "hooked beak" is fair game.
3

Allan(handofgod137),

05/08/2008 02:47:55
Sounds a sensible idea.
4

Jeeemy,

St Andrews 05/08/2008 03:17:31
This article is one of the biggest load of garbage that this so called paper has ever published.
Further comment would be a waste of time and effort.
5

Pilrig.,

Livingston 05/08/2008 05:47:02
Sez Tim "there will be some who will think they have no option (about illegal poisoning)"

I suppose bank robbers, muggers and so on likewise reckon 'they have no option'?
6

,

05/08/2008 06:49:23
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 05/08/2008 06:50:05
Unusually for Jenny Haworth, this is a well written article.
It strikes me that Tim Baynes has put it very fairly and it is hard to see how anyone can argue against statements like "It needs the will to look at it as an ecological problem and see how many of these species can we tolerate if we want to have the other birds about. Moorland is a very fragile habitat."
8

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 05/08/2008 07:33:16
If poachers were destroying my crops/lambs/ legal income source no one would argue against stopping them. Why are birds any different? I have no wish to starve to death whilst enjoying the soaring flights of predatory eagles. A balance between man and nature must be found. This article is trying to find it.
9

dyon gollins's back,

Brussels 05/08/2008 08:34:18
Who does the countryside alliance really represent - mostly owners of grouse moors and cultivated pheasant shoots - despite their posture as representing the interests of rural/countryside communities as a whole? What is the purpose of a grouse moor? To enable people with hired guns to shoot each August as many grouse as possible - an exercise in ritual slaughter which has absolutely nothing to do with preserving or enhancing rural life or the natural environment.
This piece illustrates the utter hypocrisy of the landowner lobbies - they really have no interest in anything other than increasing the influence of absentee landowners and sporting guns. They would be better trying to co-operate in the elimination of illegal activities on their members' estates rather than making suggestions for rendering legal further slaughter of Scotland's bird population!
10

A Scott,

Glasgow 05/08/2008 08:51:32
"Scottish" Countryside Alliance............English tories in tartan wellies.As long as they can kill and maim birds and animals they dont give a monkeys for anything or anybody else.....
11

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 05/08/2008 09:00:30
Tim Baynes said:
""It needs the will to look at it as an ecological problem and see how many of these species can we tolerate if we want to have the other birds about. Moorland is a very fragile habitat"

Really?? A fragile habitat which these chinless wonders are overloading with millions of captive bred pheasants and French partridges - both non-native species. I was up at Sourhope near Yetholm last week and the ground was literally 'moving' with pheasants - thousands and thousands - which are fed artificially on the hillside. Then tweed clad fools from the south of England are bussed in to slaughter these industrially reared birds. There is no respect for 'the ecology' - this is just mass industrial slaughter - 'battery pheasants' in fact. My spaniel could have killed a hundred in ten minutes if I had not ordered him off; the only way to sustain numbers like this on a moor are to kill all foxes, stoats, hawks etc. It is obscene for this idiot Tim Baynes to even MENTION the word 'ecology'.
12

gus1940,

Edinburgh 05/08/2008 09:15:48
The various species of birds evolved over millions of years achieving a balance of numbers without species being endangered until man came along with his hunting fishing and shooting idiots. The same thing applies to seals which are blamed for declining fish stocks.

The only creature responsible for the decline and extinction of particular species is man.

Any landowner responsible for the killing of raptors should be jailed and have his land confiscated.
13

C U Jimmy,

Mauchline 05/08/2008 09:47:37
Could it be that there is a threat to the well heeled Grouse shooters that is the main problem?
14

CAPER,

LOOKING FOR BALANCE 05/08/2008 09:52:59
100% OF Scotland's countryside is now managed by man in one way or another. There are very few natural balances in nature any more, many now has to intervene. Langholm moor is the best example of when the balance is lost.....

Twenty odd years ago, the Buccleuch Estates agreed to a remarkable experiment in conservation on their finest grouse moor. They proposed to resolve the age-old argument about whether birds of prey and the grouse they hunted could survive together if there was no interference from human beings.

For years the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) had accused the owners of sporting estates of killing rare birds of prey, scaring them off, or destroying their nests, in direct contravention of the law, in order to preserve the grouse that provided their sport - and sometimes their livelihood.

If only nature were allowed to take her course, said the RSPB, a healthy balance could be maintained.

The landowners, in turn, said that would be disastrous. While one or two pairs of peregrine falcon or hen harriers were manageable, unimpeded breeding would simply lead to grouse being wiped out, the end of their sporting business, and the loss of all the local jobs that depended on it. The argument went back and forward, but it was a sterile one, because both sides had only prejudice to go on.

Then, in 1992, the owner proposed that the RSPB's theory should finally be put to the test. He would instruct the five gamekeepers on his 12,000-acre Langholm Moor estate in the Scottish Borders to protect the birds of prey, or raptors as they are known, from egg-collectors, or anybody seeking to control their numbers, for five years. The experiment would be monitored by the RSPB, SNH and by other conservation bodies, so that it was fairly conducted. At the end of the five-year period, they would take stock, and see what had happened. All the parties involved agreed to accept the results.

By 1997, there was little doubt about the outcome.
15

CAPER,

continued 05/08/2008 09:53:54
The number of hen harriers had increased from two to 28 breeding females, the peregrine from two to seven pairs. The grouse had fared less well. They had been virtually wiped out. What had once been one of the most successful moors in Britain had ceased to be viable as a commercial proposition.

Given the terms of the experiment, the RSPB should, at this point, have accepted the conclusions and got together to find means of reducing the harrier numbers. Various approaches were suggested, such as scaring off the harriers at nesting time. The most realistic, from the Game Conservancy Board, was an extensive programme of relocation - moving the harrier and peregrine to areas where there were none at present, so that they could continue their breeding.

Instead of this, however, the RSPB simply moved the goalposts. The decline of grouse, they said, had nothing to do with the raptors. It was due to the poor state of the moor, the lack of heather cover, and the way the earl's sheep had grazed the hills over the years. If only sheep were removed, and heather allowed to grow, the grouse would find somewhere to hide.

Not surprisingly, the owner protested. None of this had been raised at the outset, and grouse had always flourished alongside the sheep in this supposedly poor habitat. Who was to pay for the moor now? With no grouse to shoot, and therefore no income, he would have to lay off his keepers. Surely, the point of the experiment had been to find a solution, not to destroy the only local source of employment.

The conservationists then came up with their own solution. It had a sort of mad logic to it. If only the harriers - the real killers of the moor - could be persuaded to eat something else, perhaps they would give the grouse a chance. Thus, it has transpired that every day a supply of dead rats (white ones are favoured) is put out on the moor to provide the harriers with a ready-made larder. The rats are shipped up from England, no expense spared. Th
16

CAPER,

05/08/2008 09:54:51
The harriers are delighted. Inside of having to cruise the hills in search of elusive grouse, they are given their feed, almost literally on a plate.

Despite the alternative-feeding programme running for 2 seasons following the experiment, in 2000, hen harrier nests were down to 7 as the natural food supply (grouse, meadow pipits, skylarks etc) dried up. Because of the lack of keepers, foxes predated 2 of the harriers’ nests and only 5 nests were successful.

What of the grouse? They have not thrived. Their numbers remain so low that shooting has had to be suspended. The five keepers have been reduced to one part time. Net result: raptors 20, grouse nil, keepers nil, landowner distraught.

Everybody knows it is lunatic, but the RSPB cannot publicly admit it. The society is, of course, a prisoner of its members who would never agree to interfere with these magnificent hunters of the skies. Nature must be allowed to take its course, goes the argument, even if that means sacrificing large numbers of rats (who nobody minds about) and the grouse, which come lower down the pecking order.

To suggest that feeding dead rats to wild hen harriers is restoring nature’s balance is not just dotty - it is offensive. The habitat is entirely unnatural in the first place, and has been for centuries. Man has cut down the trees, introduced sheep and cattle, allowed the heather to grow by burning it in rotation. The scenery so cherished by ramblers and tourists alike - rolling purple hills, rocks and golden bracken - is in fact preserved by gamekeepers, who know how to maintain the balance of wildlife in the countryside and who are able to sustain biodiversity and employment in rural areas by creating a shootable surplus and farming that crop carefully. Take away one element - the grouse - and all that is at risk.

Try arguing that with the RSPB however and they will talk about poor habitat and overgrazing. What you will not hear is anything about the human beings who ha
17

danbob,

05/08/2008 09:56:28
Ecological seems to be the in-word. Mention ecological this, ecological that, and your guaranted an audience. The point is that birds of pray are just doing what they do. If the landowners and their over zealous gamekeepers kept their snouts out instead of thinking of nothing but pound notes there wouldn't be a problem. Nature would do what nature does.
18

CAPER,

05/08/2008 09:56:46
What you will not hear is anything about the human beings who have lost their jobs, the small birds and grouse that have gone, and the countryside that has been denuded - all in the name of so called “Conservation”.

SORRY FOR THE CUT AND PASTE, I admit that I have lifted this text from elsewhere!
19

dyon gollins's back,

Brussels 05/08/2008 10:05:32
Where did you lift the text from, Caper? Show your colours, man!
20

danbob,

05/08/2008 10:11:16
This problem has only arisen because of one thing, Mans interference. Until the landowners started to think they knew better than nature by destroying the forests the problem didn't arise. There is not one single case in the history of this globe where man has been able to get the upper hand over nature. Now they want to do what they do best. Kill, kill, and kill some more. Sickening.
21

david watts,

05/08/2008 10:12:47
if its on the moor and its not a grouse,shoot it.
22

catgut,

pomona 05/08/2008 10:19:36
The royal society for prevention of burning and grazing are one of the biggest landowners in Orkney. A look at their management record on their own ground leaves more questions than answers.
The Hoy reserve once held the largest blackback colony in Europe along with many other major species. To-day there is a monoculture of skuas other birds having been eaten and displaced by the skua.
In the North isles the RSPB paid over the odds for land to save the corncrake result an almost total collapse of corncrake numbers.
In the sea the RSPB's sidekicks SNH have produced a seal monoculture.
Not sure if there is a connection between the staff of the RSPB and SNH being almost totally composed of incomer career academics without anyone who has worked outside the book world.
In the above cases the removal of man from the picture has just allowed the top of the chain to be taken by the skua or the selkie. The effect on the lower species is the same.
23

,

05/08/2008 10:26:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

,

05/08/2008 11:40:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
25

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 05/08/2008 11:44:39
Instead of ASBOs can't we bring back salt bullets and put the decadent and crime ridden youth out on country estates where their betters could take pot shots at their backsides? That would teach the scoundrels.
26

ignorant townie?,

Scotland.. 05/08/2008 11:46:10
Dear God...you would think this was some new debate which has been discovered by the Scotsman this morning...

Until the early 80s the landowners and their servants [legal term for gamekeepers in Scotland] killed any predators which they didnt like out of hand - law? what law....?

That was to maximise birds to be shot - grouse/pheasant.No crocodile tears about the wee birds in the hedgerows then - that came much later with the likes of the politicians and spin doctors of the SLF/SGA/SCA/SRBPA...

Then conservation - which grew out of the public becoming increasingly knowledgeable and interested about what was happening in their countryside [yes, wildlife belongs to all of us]...and when they discovered what estates and shooters [and back then, a lot of farmers too] were doing, they began to demand it be stopped.

Most farmers stopped poisoning when the first people were being caught and prosecuted under the new 1981 Act - they are mostly very law abiding people..
But the landowners and keepers didnt - as all the figures show, they are still hard at it...and damn the rest of us....scottish parliament brings in new laws?..."they dont apply to us, we are the true countrymen we know whats best for you"...

Its just the usual sickening hypocrisy from an unelected and unrepresentative [even in the countryside] group of people who are behaving true to form - like the robber barons they are descended from - trying to bully the peasants and nobble the justice system and parliament when it gets in the way of their profits and traditions [= self preservation].

If our parliament and government officials bend to this we should be thoroughly ashamed.
27

sam the god,

05/08/2008 12:46:39
#31 ignorant townie

you quote [yes, wildlife belongs to all of us]... will you be digging into your wallet to help compensate the land owners for the loss of earnings as a result of these raptors and wild life that you want to see? If your local council wanted to do something with your property that had a knock of effect (blight) you would want compensated for it so let the raptors breed but compensate the owners and anyone else affected for loss of earnings either that let them take action to save livelihoods.
28

Guy Wersh,

05/08/2008 13:09:51
#32 Did you dip into your pocket when lamplighters went out of business? Things change and lots of us have had to take different ways to gain income over the years.
29

sam the god,

05/08/2008 13:49:00
#34

showing your age their sending the kids up the chimney try keeping up with the times it is now illegal and would be politically incorrect.
#33
As for the lamp lighters the job’s disappeared but the vast majority of those employed were found jobs elsewhere.

Anyway back to the raptor legislation this is relatively new and in an era where compensation is paid (and expected for loss) so these people that are losing out should apply to the government for compensation (joe public wants to see the wildlife so why should they not be expected to pay for the privilege)
30

sam the god,

05/08/2008 15:06:27
#36

I think it is you that should take some time off in legal terminology 1954 does count as quite recent.
You quoted “the fact that compensation for this sort of thing is **sooo** last century! “ if that is the case then why are their so many no win no fee claim/compensation lawyers? Land owners are not paid anything in relation to good positive management as far as raptors are concerned so compensation should still be able to be claimed from the government. While you are on about reading time why do you not contact the RSPB and ask for details of the Langmuir Project (#17-19, 21) and see if they will actually give you any details about it.
31

CKA,

East Lothian 05/08/2008 15:37:01
"No single species should have more protection than any other species," - well said. So I guess that Red Grouse and Pheasant must not actually be species then?
32

Cheese burger,

Edinburgh 05/08/2008 16:06:59
Last month, there was an article about more BoP being killed than ever before.
Doesn't seem to me that landowners are asking permission from anyone.
33

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 05/08/2008 16:55:30
I'm sure it's more than coincidence that the numbers of "garden" birds decreases as the number of hookies in an area increases and the RSPB should either change its name to the Royal Society for the Protection of Raptors or take a more balanced view of bird protection.

Perhaps chaffinches, t1ts (the Scotsman objected to my original spelling!) and blackbirds aren't quite as good for fund-raising initiatives as buzzards, sparrowhawks and other raptors?
34

It's life but not as we know it,

The Oort Clouds 05/08/2008 17:26:04
Most human riff raff comes from the working classes. Time to offer them a simple choice: hoodies you can be turned into plant fertiliser or you can be sent to our wars abroad as cannon fodder. Therein they would learn respect and maybe go on to make something of themselves. Like the good old days.
35

overton,

balmedie 05/08/2008 17:37:21

The RSPB's ignorance of the damage potential caused predator mammals and birds almost lost the little tern breeding colony at the Sands of Forvie near Newburgh in Aberdeenshire.

The colony was recently down to zero offspring when the 'experts' in the RSPB were advised that the problem was caused by badgers, foxes, stoats , corvids and, dare I say it, raptors.

Suddenly vermin control became a realistic necessity so the foxes got hammered with the corvids but of course the buzzards got off with it.
36

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 05/08/2008 20:08:05
After carefully sifting through this article and the above comments. It is painfully obvious that the majority of the people who oppose taking up Mr Bains's suggestion do not give a hoot for moorland birds such as the curlew. They will be quite content to see these birds disappear from our landscape, most likely never to return. The appalling ignorance displayed in some comments regarding our countryside and ecosystems I find quite threatening regarding any hope of informed action from some people who could help to make survival of some threatened moorland species ensured. The pure hatred displayed towards people who I know really care about species, jobs and landscape survival is quite astounding. Talk of five year studies to see if curlew numbers are falling? You should be dismissed today sir! Nero may not have fiddled while Rome burned, but some 'Conservation' bodies are only that by declaration! You should be ashamed to set foot on the soil of God's earth!
37

Allan(handofgod137),

06/08/2008 02:54:53
Ah the usual class war comments from the leftist nuggets, how many of you realise that the RSPB have killed raptors to protect other species?
38

overton,

balmedie 06/08/2008 05:01:46

#47 - Apologies for that Nomada.
There's me thinking that the SNH and the RSPB were one and the same.
39

overton,

balmedie 06/08/2008 09:18:53

#51 - Would that be the big 'we' or are you only pontificating for yourself?

40

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 06/08/2008 10:02:37
#43, 51, etc, etc, etc.

Come off it, Nomada. Are you seriously trying to tell that raptors don't attack other species? They do. Not only that but the mere presence of a hawk-shaped bird overflying a piece of ground is enough to send all the smaller birds to cover. Constant overflying scares them away completely - and then the raptors have to move on too.

If the RSPB must indulge itself in birdlife husbandry, it must surely start to take an ecolgically balanced view across the whole spectrum of species to avoid further damage.

The RSPB's policies are geared towards fund-raising (exclusively, it sometimes appears) so its stances invariably leap on to the current populist fad. Fortunately, these fads, which are often based on misconception, eventually run out of steam of their own accord.
41

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 06/08/2008 11:43:37
# 51 NoneMadder

My word! You really do like the one line 'put down' approach don't you! Is it part of your psychological warfare technique? When are you going to provide proof regarding your statement of members of the SGA regularly trampling on harrier nests, which you stated last Sunday/Monday? Kindly supply your evidence in writing, now! Or else be confirmed as the one with appalling ignorance of the subject and make yourself available for legal action to be taken against you. I had you down as 'a controller' from the first day I came across your comments on various issues regarding culling pests and countryside management. You haven't disappointed me so far! I'm a lot more informed on these subjects than you could ever dream, my 'trick cyclist' friend! Pip! Pip!
42

overton,

balmedie 06/08/2008 12:53:21
#55

What unadulterated garbage to speak - do you actually believe what you vomit onto this discussion page?

Your elementary mis-understanding of numbers is disturbing in one who profesess overwhelming knowledge in all subjects.

Unfortunately the stabilisation of raptors on a grouse moor usually means that the breeding population of grouse disappears of the face of the earth.
43

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 06/08/2008 13:07:17
Sorry, #55, I haven't read the manuals and elementary ecology books that you prize so much and I don't really need some stuffed shirt - presumably living off charitable funds in Sandy, Bedfordshire - telling me what I should see every time I look out of my window (which is over 500 miles north of yours).

Why not let your garden birds and raptors out of their cages and then see what happens?
44

Jacqueline Hyde ,

On the shelf 06/08/2008 13:15:20
#56
It depends on what you call "stabilisation". My local keepers actually welcome the odd bird of prey because they keep down a lot of vermin and tend to go for the weaker straggling chicks that probably wouldn't survive a bout of bad weather anyway. On the other hand, too many predators creates a situation where they will go for just about anything, just to survive. It's all a question of balance - which is something our RSPB friend simply cannot comprehend.
45

Beergoggles,

England 07/08/2008 14:33:26
' "Scottish" Countryside Alliance............English tories in tartan wellies'

No Scottish Tories either? All English then. Xenophobic imbecile.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.