Petitions

Thank you for giving the Scottish Gamekeepers Association the opportunity to speak to our petitions. I will start by giving the background to the petitions. It is almost four years since we submitted our first petition, PE187, which asked for licensed control of predatory birds. That petition was put back repeatedly and we were given no opportunity to state our case. We assume that that was because of advice given to ministers by Scottish Natural Heritage and RSPB Scotland.In an attempt to resolve the issues that PE187 raised, it was finally decided that we should be taken on to the moorland forum, so that our raptor problems could be addressed. That was a good idea, but it would help us to deal with only part of our problem, as most raptors live in low-ground areas. Therefore, our only option was to submit petition PE449, in an attempt to reach the Rural Development Committee. Having our problems addressed only through the forum restricts our ability to ensure that politicians and the public receive a balanced view of the arguments. It is important that members of the Scottish Parliament should hear the other side of the argument, so that they can draw conclusions that are based on all the facts.Many millions of songbirds are dying from cat, crow and mustelid predation. Others have found that their natural nesting sites have disappeared. According to RSPB reports, small-bird and wader populations are at an all-time low. Conversely, raptor numbers are at a high of almost half a million. Raptors are putting more pressure on the already low songbird and wader populations.It can be argued that the United Kingdom has the highest concentration of raptors in the world. More than 200 million small birds and waders are killed and eaten by raptors every year. The fact that many of those are rearing young, which also die when deprived of parental care, raises the death rate even higher.In the same breath as claiming that the killing of 200 million small birds by raptors has no impact on the overall population of songbirds, the bird protection lobby claims that the loss of one raptor will threaten the viability of the species. Numbers of waders, woodland grouse, partridge, thrushes and sparrows are declining. Raptors such as peregrines, sparrow-hawks, buzzards and goshawks are increasing in number. Every day, they feed on birds whose populations are declining.If a fox is attacking a farmer's lambs, the farmer has the right to dispose of the fox to protect his stock and his livelihood. I ask the committee to consider whether other individuals should not also have the right to protect their stock and their livelihood when they are threatened by predator attacks. At the moment, we are being denied that right.I ask the committee to consider whether it is time that we started to manage predatory bird populations, in conjunction with habitat management, in an effort to halt the decline in songbird and wader numbers. As we have no confidence in the ability of SNH and its friends, the RSPB, to be objective about the issue, we would like the Rural Development Committee to instigate an independent inquiry into the impact of protected species on private stock and other wildlife.

It is hard to imagine that anywhere else has more raptors than Scotland does. Buzzards and sparrow-hawks are everywhere. You name it; they are out there. If the population of raptors is thicker in Europe than it is in Scotland, it would be surprising if those countries had any birds left.

As a small organisation, we do not have access to scientific data from other countries.

It is certainly true that there are more raptors in Scotland than there are in England.

Yes.

There are supporters among land management and shooting interests on those forums. The raptor study groups have refused to speak to us. The police have tried to broker a meeting between us and those people. They refuse on the ground that they do not want to speak to us.In the moorland forum, we are currently bogged down in trying to get habitat and other issues sorted out, such as deer fences and agricultural matters. We have not yet got on to the raptor situation. We are currently discussing diversionary feeding for harriers. That is on-going.

It is an appropriate forum for harriers, peregrines and perhaps eagles; it certainly does not cover our other needs on the lower ground.

Yes. In the past, raptor numbers have been quoted. The only estimate of buzzard numbers in Scotland—in fact I think that this figure is for the UK—is 17,000 pairs. I assure the committee that there is a pair of buzzards for almost every 150 acres in Scotland. We did a small dip-in survey to see what the problems were, and that is the finding that it produced.

The matter is fairly well covered in relation to the moorland, although there are disputes about how the numbers of harriers, peregrines and so on are obtained. However, nobody has produced statistics for the low ground. The RSPB, SNH and so on have produced estimates. They have come up with figures, but we dispute them. We are out there every day and we know what is flying around and doing damage; it is certainly not the small number that they state.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation did a survey on buzzard predation. It produced a glossy pamphlet that said that the problem was not as bad as we are making out. We asked the BASC where that survey had taken place. It had taken place in England, but the BASC would not disclose exactly where in England. We feel that the survey is not relevant to Scotland.

I will take buzzards as an example, because they are the most prolific bird, and they have given us the most problems in the lower areas. If a quota system of some kind were introduced for buzzards, we would be able to manage the population. For example, if we were to use the figure of three buzzard nests on a 1,000 acre area that would be three pairs of buzzards every 1,000 acres. If there were any more than three nests, we could deal with the buzzards. We deal with crows—we take them out all the time. They, like buzzards, have a sustainable population. To ensure that no one was exceeding the score, and trying to wipe out buzzards, which we do not want, we envisage that only extra buzzards and extra nests would be taken out. That would not hurt the sustainability of the buzzard population overall.

We accept that there is a degree of illegal poisoning, and we are working hard with the police to get that down to nothing. One of the problems is frustration, and not only for gamekeepers, who read in the press that they are doing the damage. Other people are also resorting to poison, because they have no other way of addressing the problem. Birds such as red kites are becoming caught up in those incidents. If we were allowed to deal with the problem under licence, covert poisoning would not be necessary. People could get rid of the problem through whatever means.

I am not going to point the finger at anybody, but there are other people who have interests in the countryside.

People have problems with black-backed gulls killing lambs, and with ravens.

They might not be farmers. People who work on farms might decide to take action themselves. We do not know. We just know that things are turning up that have nothing to do with gamekeepers. We have looked into the matter as closely as we can, and have had to make estimations about what is going on.A few years ago, a red kite was found and it was full of sheep—mutton, lamb or whatever. That had nothing to do with a gamekeeper. If someone wants to get rid of a problem, all they have to do is to throw down poison. People who do that live in the country just like we do. They see something coming into their gardens and stealing their hens. What they do about it is up to them; we cannot be responsible for them.

We would go along with that.

There has been an increase in the population of raptors. Their main staple diet, the rabbit, is dying off. The rabbit has viral haemorrhagic disease, and is disappearing all over Scotland—I do not know about England. Everyone is reporting the demise of the rabbit, which cuts down on the food supply available to birds. Birds are attacking young waders—chicks that cannot fly—and feeding on them in the fields because there are no rabbits to eat. That has happened before, but this time the situation worse. There are many buzzards in the air and not enough road kills for them to eat. They cannot live only on carrion as has been suggested; they are killers and will take full-grown pheasants. Therefore, although the birds' usual food supply is reducing, their numbers are increasing.It is a myth to say that the food supply will govern how many raptors there are. It will in the finish, but by that time, what will we have lost? Many things are being killed on the hills. For example, dunlin, curlew and golden plover are steadily being killed by peregrines—everybody on the hills, and even the RSPB in its figures, report that those particular waders are beginning to disappear. There is no agriculture up there to make them disappear, so it is nothing to do with sheep; it is to do with predation. We must examine that. We must try to save the birds that we have left—we are with the RSPB on that—but we are not so blinkered as to believe that the situation is just down to bad farming practices.

Langholm is a prime example of what will happen if raptors get a free hand to do as they want all over the place, and if there are more and more of them than there are today. At Langholm, they started off with two pairs of harriers. They decided to do an experiment to see what would happen if they increased the number of harriers, which they managed to do. Persecution might have been keeping the numbers down, but we do not know. The number of harriers increased to 28 pairs, not just in the area in which the scientists were working, but outside that area as well. They devastated the grouse. The RSPB and SNH made excuses and said that degradation of the ground caused the problem, but it did not. The ground is the same today as it was when they started the experiment. Each year, 2,000 grouse were being killed on that moor. Now, few grouse are left on it. The harriers have gone down to two or three pairs, because there is nothing for them to eat. They have eaten themselves out of house and home. Diversionary feeding has been introduced in an attempt to alleviate the problem of the harriers eating all the other birds, but that is not working either. It is bringing in other vermin species, because they are drawn in by the food supply. The situation is not being considered properly. There is a lot of spin on it.

The important thing about Langholm is that when the experiment started, the head gamekeeper had two pairs of harriers on the ground, plus they were shooting 2,000 brace of grouse, and they employed five people. He was asked what he thought the ground could stand, and he thought that it might be two pairs. After the experiment finished, there was no gamekeeper, and the harrier numbers dropped back down again to two pairs, because the foxes and crows ate the harriers' eggs. However, there were no grouse, no gamekeepers and there was no employment.

And no rural income.

Yes. I am sure that diversionary feeding would work in some areas, but it is not the answer to the problem, because it keeps numbers at a false level, and creates another problem.

That will be extremely significant in areas where there are eagles, which would feed on sheep carcases. Although it has been illegal for a long time to leave dead sheep lying out on the hill, I know that it happens. They might have ended up somewhere where the shepherd has not been able to see them. In the main, shepherds pick up such sheep and take them home. There are many instances of eagles following stalkers to get the grallochs. If the grallochs are removed and buried, then a food source for the eagles is removed. White hare populations are also going down. We do not understand why, but we think that it is more to do with the weather than with anything else. Fifteen years ago, 2,000 white hare would be shot a day—they were treated as pests. Now, all of a sudden, they are not surviving. They are suffering from worms and dying of God knows what else. If their population goes down, that will affect the birds on the hill.

That is correct.

What you say is absolutely correct. The birds that you mentioned are out there and visible, and they are the ones that everybody wants to see. Nobody seems all that interested in the smaller birds and their numbers. One gamekeeper went out to a peregrine nest with a raptor working group guy. The gamekeeper climbed up to the nest to ring the birds and, when he looked down into the nest, he saw seven partly eaten ring ouzels. When the gamekeeper mentioned that to the raptor working group person, he just said, "But we're no interested in ring ouzels." We are interested in them, however.

We are willing to try anything to solve our problem. We latched on to diversionary feeding and decided to feed the buzzard population. I personally fed the buzzards for one year, and I will not repeat the experience. My buzzard population just about doubled because they had a food source. I was going out at night, shooting rabbits and leaving them lying in the field for the buzzards to eat. I ended up with buzzards, big black-backed gulls, crows, ravens—you name it; they came and fed in those fields. Now, I take anything dead that I see in a field and stuff it down a rabbit hole or bury it someplace oot the road. There is now nothing left to encourage creatures to come to my fields. The effect of diversionary feeding is the reverse of what is desired.

I can back that up. The effect of feeding the buzzards was exactly the same when I did it: I ended up with far too many. All we seek is a balance.

We do not take RSPB Scotland seriously, because it is so into raptors and nothing else. It makes a big song and dance about being interested in various things, but some of the stuff that it does makes us wince. It stopped crow and fox control as an experiment to save the capercaillie. The capercaillie population crashed. In the Uists, RSPB Scotland does not seem to have any idea what it is doing with the hedgehogs. Everything is for the public's consumption; it has nothing to do with what needs to be done.

Surely there are independent scientists out there—perhaps at the University of Stirling or somewhere—who could be trusted to do such a job.

An investigation that was carried out by the RSPB would not have any credibility with us. If the results came up wrong, people would just shout "Foul". However, if the results came up wrong after an independent investigation, we would have to accept them. We regard SNH as being in the same boat, because it has been fairly well infiltrated by the RSPB.

I do not see how we can do anything unless people agree that there is a problem. At the moment, no one thinks that there is a problem. Once everyone accepts that there is a problem, we will be able to work from a different platform.I want to draw a parallel with the situation on the Uists. RSPB Scotland and SNH have accused us in the press of raptor persecution, claiming that more than 100 birds are poisoned a year. However, science laboratory figures show that only 25 raptors were poisoned. That already shows a discrepancy. Furthermore, what happened in the Uists is more of a management issue, which is why we do not trust anyone on the matter. Seventeen years ago, the gamekeepers on Uist told SNH that there was a problem with hedgehogs, but SNH did nothing for nine years. Then the RSPB told SNH about the hedgehog problem, and SNH spent six years trying to find out what the problem was and whether it was caused by hedgehogs. Two years after that, SNH came to a decision. If SNH had made the same decision 17 years ago when it was first told about the matter, there would have been no problem. Exactly the same thing is happening with raptors and predatory birds, and will happen with predatory animals such as pine martens. They will become so numerous that they will cause problems.

To reach an agreement, we have to acknowledge that there is a problem. SNH and the RSPB are not even acknowledging that.

With all due respect, that is not going to happen, because the stance that SNH and the RSPB have taken on the Uists prevails in the forum. They have stated that no one can kill raptors because of the 1979 European Commission birds directive. However, article 2 of the directive says:"Member States shall take the requisite measures to maintain the population of"bird"species … at a level which corresponds … to ecological, scientific and cultural requirements, while taking account of economic and recreational requirements, or to adapt the population of these species to that level."That does not mean that the level need necessarily go up; it can also come down.We believe that the mechanism is there to do that, once we have decided that there is a problem. Our argument is that if there are 200 million birds, some of which are endangered and are being killed annually, there is an ecological balance. If raptors and ravens are reducing endangered grouse stocks to a level that is not viable, the situation is not only ecological but cultural and economic. If individual gamekeepers are losing thousands of pounds of stock, they risk losing their jobs and that brings economic damage to the whole rural community. The situation is the same for tourists who come to Scotland to fish or shoot as part of their recreation. If game numbers are not viable for shooting or fishing, the effects are recreational and financial as well.The requirements are within the derogation. When we ask SNH about this, it says, "No, you cannot do that. You just cannot kill raptors." People can get a licence to kill a robin for fouling fruit in a supermarket, but we cannot get a licence to kill a buzzard or raven that is doing harm. If we were lucky, we might get someone to investigate within six months of our reporting it, but we will not get a licence. We want a level playing field that enables people to get their problems investigated and dealt with immediately. That would stop people taking the law into their own hands in trying to protect their stock.

It is like teaching your granny to suck eggs. The British Association for Shooting and Conservation brought out the report in conjunction with SNH and the RSPB. I know that I am being cynical, but when I read the report all I see is the BASC trailing along behind SNH and the RSPB, doing what it is told.

The report is of a study that was done in England. England has nowhere near the number of raptors that Scotland has.

The BASC's recommendations are good. There is no doubt that they help, but we have been doing all that the BASC recommends all the time. We have been trying to protect our stock from all sorts of problems for years. We have tried every avenue that we can. The problem is that we might be able to protect our stock within a pen, but once the birds fly out of the pen and start to disperse, the raptors just follow them.

That would definitely be in SNH's ball park. We are gamekeepers. We do not have time to survey, or to count every nest. We do not have the finances for a start.

That depends on the predation on the moor. You could ask SNH when the witnesses arrive. At the moment, a bunch of estates are going to go together and try diversionary feeding. I have spoken to SNH about that. One of the things that we are insisting on is that we take an inventory of all the species on those estates now. If, after an increase in the numbers of harriers or peregrines—or whatever species they are trying to increase—the inventory is depleted, our point will have been made.

I imagine that it would be the same as Langholm. It took only five years for Langholm to go down the tubes.

I doubt it. They might be used to control bracken.There are only 200 grouse moors left in Scotland and they bring in something like £14 million to the rural economy. If those moors have endangered species on them—such as ring ouzels, dotterels, lapwings and curlews—why can the Government not license the grouse moors in some way? In that way, when a raptor or raven or other predatory bird appeared, the gamekeepers could phone the Government and ask it to remove the raptor, because the land would be a registered grouse moor. That would not just benefit the grouse; other bird species would benefit and their populations would rise. That would seem to be a commonsense thing to do.

I thank the committee for giving us the opportunity to talk to you this afternoon.We have given a written submission and I hope that that is helpful. The issues that are raised by the petitions have been considered by SNH during recent years. Perhaps the most detailed consideration of the overall issue is to be found in the report from the UK raptor working group, of which I was the chair before I moved to SNH.That report made many recommendations about the status of birds of prey, and the work required to manage the interactions between birds of prey and other species, taking account of grouse shooting, racing pigeons, lowland game birds and songbirds. The recommendations are important, in that the UK raptor working group was made up of landowning and shooting interests and the report was consensual.Mention has been made of the EC birds directive. I want to mention that only briefly, in that, as the gamekeeper said, article 2 makes general statements. Article 2 should be read alongside article 9 for derogation and the ability to derogate. Again, those issues are covered in some detail in the UK report.SNH set up a moorland working group about five and a half years ago. We have now formed the moorland forum, which we heard about earlier. The forum is made up of 25 organisations and there are already sub-groups from that forum. One such group is chaired by the Scottish Landowners Federation and deals with policy issues; another is chaired by the Heather Trust and deals with public relations and promotional issues. The moorland forum is inclusive. It is certainly still young, it has time to go, and there are encouraging signs from its early days, although I accept that there is more to do. The forum is trying to pursue and clarify the role of moorlands in maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. It is important that we in SNH state that we see that grouse moors provide an important habitat for wildlife overall.From my point of view, it is a shame that we are dealing with what might be termed a vestige of Victorian values when it comes to managing raptors. Where there is persecution, we have a problem. Beyond that, however, SNH and the gamekeepers have much common ground and practice. One example is mink control on the Western Isles, where SNH contracts and employs on-site gamekeepers through various routes. I would not like to give the impression that we are poles apart; there is much commonality between us.As regards research, we are undertaking collaborative work to show that it is possible to reduce the take on game birds through non-lethal methods. In that respect, we think about habitat management and supplementary feeding. The latter is a fine-tuned method; it is not simply a matter of putting out masses of prey, but involves timing and positioning.We note, even in this weekend's press, as the convener said, that public interest in birds of prey perhaps goes beyond interest in other species. We are encouraged that the SGA would expel any member if they were found to be persecuting and acting outside the law. It is right to close by noting the strength of feeling in the country about birds of prey.With that, Professor Thompson and I would be happy to answer questions.

The report is a compilation of information; it is not just one piece of research. The group was made up of brood membership including SLF and there was a strong Scottish component within the group. I happened to be chairperson because, at that time, I was involved in the UK Joint Nature Conservation Committee. We drew heavily on research from round the country, but the Langholm study that we heard about was also fundamental to the work of that group. The Langholm results are built into the recommendations, which must be read as a package; it is not a matter of picking one off here and there. Taken as a package, the recommendations mean that we—conservationists, landowners and gamekeepers—must work together. What is encouraging for me, as I return to the forum, is that we are beginning to get there. There is a lot of work to be done, but people are gathered round the same table. That is a step forward.

If you read the report, or even a summary of it, you would see that a majority of the recommendations and a majority of comments relate to and come from Scotland. On the factual point, a species such as golden eagle or hen harrier is centred in Scotland. Hen harriers in particular are heavily persecuted in many areas south of the border. Many species of raptor are centred in Scotland; others, such as merlin, are spread throughout the UK.

The group met 25 times over five years. The report was launched in February 2000, so the group existed from 1995 to 2000.

There are two issues there. First, we are not infiltrated by the RSPB or by any other organisation—

Not in my adult years. I was a member as a child, but I am not now, since you are not asking.There is a serious point to consider. Scottish Natural Heritage has a statutory role; as an organisation, it clearly works on its own credibility. That is significant.As far as Langholm was concerned, SNH was part of a consortium that comprised landowners, the Game Conservancy Trust and independent institutions. That consortium funded and managed the Langholm project.I agree that Langholm has been much misinterpreted. Bear in mind that the study was set up to look at the relationship between gamebirds and raptor numbers, not to cure any damage. For example, it is a misinterpretation to ask why the grouse have not recovered, because that was not attempted at Langholm.Langholm showed that when there is a range of habitat and management issues because grouse stocks are low, birds of prey may maintain that low level. Looking at the data, harrier numbers did not cause the overall decline.

Perceptions are extremely important. I agree that something has to be tackled, in the countryside and on grouse moors in particular. Having spent time as chair of the UK raptor working group, one begins to see the issues and to become very involved. Management in the countryside is necessary because it looks at ways of reducing the take of grouse by birds of prey. We are piloting that now. Techniques exist—for example, supplementary feeding—that we would like to see expanded in the countryside. Supplementary feeding was tested at Langholm for harriers only, but was not tested in any great detail on other moors across the country. We would like that to be done.We could argue for ever about population levels. I would rather that we debated how we could better manage the countryside together. An independent inquiry could be done, but I am not sure that it would gather any information or research that we do not already have. I wonder whether it would be valuable as an exercise in itself.If one held an inquiry that lasted for five years, as Bert Burnett suggested, it is logical that one might not get much action in that time.

We must also bear in mind that there is a lot of consensus about the Langholm report. One page of "Scotland's Moorland: The Nature of Change", which was produced jointly by the Game Conservancy Trust, the Scottish Landowners Federation, SNH and the RSPB, contains a consensus report that shows what Langholm did and did not show. To suggest that there is disagreement on what Langholm showed is slightly off the mark.As Colin Galbraith mentioned, the management of grouse moors goes back to Victorian times—indeed, it goes back further than that. Certainly, in Victorian times, there was a tradition of eliminating all predators, be they birds of prey or pest species. Sadly, that attitude prevails today in some quarters.

No, I do not think that it is just that. There is a genuine perception among many gamekeepers in some areas that bird numbers are suffering because of raptor predation, but the scientific evidence indicates that that is not the case.

We commissioned some of the research, but we try to use the best available evidence from whatever the published source.

Throughout scientific literature, there is a clear process of peer review by which someone comments on another person's work. That process is usually done anonymously and the process moves forward as the literature is published. A UK report on the subject of racing pigeons and raptors is one example of that. We are now working closely with the Scottish Homing Union and I hope, in time, that our joint research project will be peer reviewed and published. Credibility is important in the current situation. The countryside is dynamic: it takes a lot of time and resources to get information that is reliable and objectively collected.

Some of the world's foremost ecologists served on the UK raptor working group, including at least one fellow of the Royal Society.

No, as we heard earlier; certainly none is facing extinction.

I cannot think of any examples that show depletion that has brought a species to a threatened level. Mr Stevenson could also put the question to Des Thompson.If we take grouse populations as an example, we are talking about what we consider to be the shootable surplus of a species, which is the part of the population that will be shot each year. The grouse population is a common species and Des Thompson can probably give the figures for grouse numbers throughout Scotland. That is not to say that we do not recognise the problem that has to be dealt with. It is clear that there is a problem in managing the countryside.

That is right. Even the Langholm report shows the clear long-term decline in grouse numbers regardless of the variation in numbers of predators. In some years, there were very few predators and yet grouse numbers continued to decline.The Langholm report's assessment of habitat change showed a 48 per cent loss of heather coverage. When one probes and looks into the underlying factors, one often finds that it is loss of habitat or abandonment of active management that gives rise to those changes.

Yes. That is a fair point. The line that I would want to take is that that can be done by a combination of habitat management, good gamekeeping and supplementary feeding. In the case of hen harriers, that has to be carefully done and a wider trial needs to be undertaken. As I said earlier, the realistic way forward is to manage moorland areas within the law. Issues such as pest control, including the control of crows and foxes, have to be considered under the legislation.

Birds are generally drawn into areas where there is a good food supply. That is self-evident. In this case, the grouse are of interest and value, and the harriers are eating large numbers of them. No one disputes that. SNH has been accused in the past of not listening, not trying, not experimenting and not taking a risk. We have done all of that with supplementary feeding. We have tried techniques that are novel and different. When that is done carefully, you can get a twelvefold reduction in the take of grouse through the peak period of May, June and early July, which is exactly the time when the grouse chicks come out.If we can get to a win-win situation, where there is no real conservation doubt and where gamekeepers and landowners are content that their grouse stocks are being less predated, on a basic level, that is worth a proper trial across the country. To do that, we need co-operation from landowners and keepers, and that is coming, but trying to get to that win-win situation is much better than getting into a legalistic tangle on what can and cannot be killed. That is, quite simply, premature.

I will give two brief answers, the first of which is legalistic. We know that with harriers we have to go down a cascade of non-interventionist techniques and then techniques that are more and more interventionist. We are still at stage 1, which is having that wider trial of supplementary feeding, before we go down that cascade.The scientific answer is that of course we could do such a trial. That would be interesting. We have to look at the management that would arise from that. We would be signing up to moving animals around. Bear in mind what I said earlier, which is that they will tend to go where the food is best anyway. We would then be into a long-term, extremely costly movement of harriers around the country. That begs the questions where we would release them and why there are no harriers there in the first place. There are many complexities.

No, I did not say that.

No, it is not. Essentially, what you are talking about is moving birds out of a problem area, but the birds would keep coming back into that problem area. There will be no security of food supply in the area where they are to be released. With red kite, for example, which have been released back into Scotland, extensive work has been done to ensure that the food supply exists. There has been no other way to do it—that is the other overriding factor. There are many guidelines, which I will not go into today, but there are ways to do it. The red kite programme satisfies all that and would never happen naturally. Doing a translocation in relation to grouse is different and, I suspect, is not needed yet.

No, absolutely not. As I said earlier, we see grouse moors, when they are managed within the law—that is an important caveat—as a valuable place for biodiversity and wildlife, and they are valuable to the economy of the country.

The RSPB has to stand up and give its own view. I simply do not know.

I do not know.

It sounds bizarre to say it, but you have to examine cause and effect at one level, and that is still an open question in many people's minds. I hate to say it, but there is also a legalistic argument, as although many birds of prey populations are increasing, they are still relatively small and fragmented across the country, and they are highly threatened. I accept that we are in a catch-22 situation, where persecution is still widespread, as far as we can see, so we are dealing with rare, fragmented and threatened populations, as opposed to foxes, which are very common and by which there is direct evidence of damage. I do not know whether Professor Thompson wishes to give you information on the numbers of birds of prey populations, to give you a flavour.

On the overall numbers of birds of prey, we have heard figures of half a million or 200,000 pairs. Actually, there are 35,000 pairs of birds of prey in Scotland. That figure is based on the most up-to-date available information.

In short, they are dying. That does not imply anything, however, as death is a natural thing. At the end of each breeding season, more birds of every species will be around but winter is a harsh time for many species and, quite simply, many birds die.Last year, a peregrine survey that was done across Scotland showed that numbers have levelled off and that they might be declining in some parts of the country. There is a survey of golden eagles planned for the coming season and we should wait to see what it tells us. There has been an increase in numbers since the 1960s and early 1970s, but some of the more recent evidence is that populations are levelling off and there are local declines.

It means a number of things. The first thing to bear in mind is that the number of hen harriers is determined by the amount of prey, in particular meadow pipits and voles, rather than grouse. Langholm is a grassy grouse moor that has lost most of its heather cover. It is therefore ideal habitat for hen harriers feeding on small birds. One of the important things that happened in Langholm was that the gamekeeping team was disbanded. As a result of that, there was very little pest control. Consequently, crows and foxes are preying on the hen harriers that are attempting to nest in the area.

If they are attributed to me, I would say that they are. Maximum impact management—

Using all legal methods available—

Yes.

A range of countries throughout Europe have very good laws but a lot of illegal persecution. Malta comes to mind. Each year in Malta, a large number of raptors are shot on migration. If we went down a culling route, it would probably be biologically meaningless, as there would be some failing behind it, and it would be difficult to manage and police. Above all, it would be a public relations disaster for the countryside in general and for landowners and gamekeepers in particular. It would enrage public opinion beyond anything that I can think of in wildlife conservation.As the chair of the UK group and in my current role, I have worked pretty hard in arguing that we should not go down that route. I believe that there is an awful lot more common ground here than is evident today. The issue is about managing the countryside in a reasonable way, and I am optimistic that we can achieve that without a culling programme.

The vast majority of people in Scotland enjoy seeing birds of prey. The marvels of our countryside appeal to a lot of people. Open-air enjoyment of the countryside supports around 30,000 jobs and generates around £700 million per annum. The prospect of Scotland's losing that is a matter of concern.

We are quite a few steps away from getting there. There seems to be a fairly clear way forward that involves working together on habitat management and trialling supplementary feeding more widely. However, we just do not seem to be able to get that going. We are not getting the co-operation that we need to trial such measures more widely, although I remain optimistic that we will get that co-operation.

That is very much a matter of personal opinion. I understand the gamekeepers' and landowners' position completely. They have to produce a driven grouse population to be shot each year. However, management of the countryside has changed dramatically over the past five or 10 years and I am not sure that grouse shooting, in its entirety, has changed in the same way. The issue is about looking for different ways of doing things. However, it is hard for people to change what their families have done for 100 years.

We propose that the birds be fed intensively after they have laid their eggs in the season, so that the number of potential young is not increased. We undertook a two-year trial of that at Langholm, and there was no evidence of an increased survival rate, but we need a longer trial to test that.On your second point, concerning whether the populations of birds of prey will continue to increase, it should be remembered that feeding on grouse moors is only part of the birds' annual cycle. There are other factors during the rest of the year—over the winter, particularly—that may lead to the mortality rate that we spoke about earlier. Natural processes, such as starvation, may lead to that. Let us take the example of peregrine falcons. Last year, the evidence showed that the population is stable and may be declining locally. It does not look as if the populations of birds of prey are increasing continually. The situation is similar for golden eagles. We know that there are around 440 pairs of golden eagles in Scotland. There has been no great increase in the past 10 or 15 years.

Not in the past 20 years.

Nevertheless, there has been an increase in the populations of some species since 1960, which we tend to take as a base point because that was when birds of prey were very threatened, mainly from chemical poisoning.

The way to address the matter is not to consider reducing the number of birds of prey, but to consider any impact that they might have on the grouse stock. If we think of the matter in that way, we could have the same number of birds of prey on a grouse moor from April to July but with less of an impact. That could be done in two particular ways. The first is habitat management, on which there is more work to do, and the second is supplementary feeding. There is still potential for a win-win situation, in which we have actively managed grouse moors with good employment for keepers and the conservation lobby is content that we are managing in a way that does not kill harriers. If we can get that and get wider trials of those techniques, there could be a benefit to the country through having good management in the uplands that could be a model for other countries.

The challenge on the Langholm moor would be to re-establish heather, create more heather for the grouse and try to reduce any impact from harriers on the grouse by feeding the harriers during the critical periods that have been mentioned.

We would not look towards a cull, because it is unlikely that we would be faced with that situation. Look at the hen harrier numbers, for example. They have not increased dramatically over the past five or so years, as far as we can tell. A cull would be biologically difficult, extremely difficult to implement and a public relations disaster for all concerned.

It is important to remember that limiting factors limit the raptor population. Food supply or the availability of nest sites limit their numbers. The evidence indicates that there has been no change for golden eagles, peregrines, merlins and some other raptors. By and large, the populations are fairly stable from year to year.

We have to turn the question round. Who would police it? What level of culling is appropriate? How would we set the standards? How would that be viewed in Europe—although we might not like the question—in terms of the law under which we work? There are huge impracticalities. We are considering different, more novel solutions. There are ways to skin the cat without killing it.

Novel management would be good for PR. That would involve grouse moors with hen harriers, a reduced impact on grouse and many more songbirds and waders—now we are talking about good PR. That is the sort of grouse moor that I would have thought people would want to visit and enjoy.

No. I simply do not know. We have circumstantial evidence and we talk to a lot of people, but we do not know.

I suspect that, where persecution occurs—we know that it does because of the occasional prosecution—it is a rapid activity. It is not an easy thing to catch. I would like to move away from a situation in which that sort of activity is policed and try to work more collaboratively and positively.

The British Trust for Ornithology, which is one of the leading European ornithological research institutes, has about 200 monitoring plots in Scotland. They are called breeding bird survey plots and they monitor the year-to-year changes in numbers of common birds, such as meadow pipits, skylarks and some of the wading species. The RSPB, the Game Conservancy Trust, SNH and other organisations and individuals have carried out a lot of other survey work. We have been able to pull a lot of that information together. The Scottish countryside is remarkably well surveyed by researchers.

Yes—the data are very good.

When I spoke earlier, I was talking about how things done by landowners and gamekeepers might be perceived and was referring to what would be a PR disaster for them. My work and Des Thompson's work with SNH are scientifically driven. We try, in as much as anyone can, to base our judgments solely on objectively collected data and information. In the case of the hedgehogs, and in numerous others, we have taken a particular line that has not been well received from a PR point of view. That is, from my point of view, irrelevant. It is about being objective and basing decisions on sound science when possible.

We are working generally with Forest Enterprise on land management and the issue of boundaries between forestry and moorland.

We have worked extremely closely with the Forestry Commission on species such as the capercaillie—we have worked both with the authority and with Forest Enterprise. We have to bear in mind the fact that some forestry plantations are second-rotation forests. Some plantations are clear felled, with heathers coming through. Hen harriers, merlins and other species will come and nest in those areas. There is a balance there between hen harriers and—

We have good data for hen harriers nesting in plantations. The birds are feeding 7km or 8km away from where they are nesting.

Yes—on the adjoining moorland.

How many would they kill a year? Oh, heavens! Each bird might kill a bird every two days, although I could not give you a figure off the top of my head.

I would be happy to do the calculations and come back to you on that.

We have taken the Gamekeepers Association into the moorland forum, particularly over the past year. That is an important forum for debate and discussion of the way forward. I hope that the association does not feel excluded. Personally, I work as closely with it as I do with many other organisations. It is not about exclusion; it is about coming into the forum and accepting that there will, inevitably, be pretty robust debate from time to time. From SNH's point of view, there is no antagonism at all. There may be differences on issues and on whether we accept certain information or data, but there is no antagonism.

It would be misleading for me to give you a figure off the top of my head. A buzzard feeds on rabbits and skylarks—there are differences in diet.

I am not aware of detailed figures that would enable one to make such a comparison.

One of the most controversial studies that has been debated loud and long during the past few years is the joint raptor study. Everyone knows it colloquially as the Langholm study. From its inception, the study was meant to be inclusive. The partners in the project included local landowners, the Game Conservancy Trust, the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology—the former Institute of Terrestrial Ecology—the RSPB and SNH. The study was conducted with all interests working together towards its conclusions. The participants and supporters of the Langholm study include a wide range of interests, which agreed the fine wording of the joint raptor study report. Since then, the study has been the subject of discussion by different parties, but it and the science behind it were multiparty and multi-interest. The intention was to publish papers from that study in peer-reviewed scientific journals. For such journals, researchers' papers are submitted to editors, who submit them to independent, top-level scientists to adjudicate whether they are worth publishing. The process leading up to a scientific peer-reviewed paper is a good way of ensuring that the science is well founded, well researched and independently checked before being published and accepted.The raptor working group, which I am sure has been discussed in detail by other witnesses, comprised representatives from the pigeon-racing fraternity, the Game Conservancy Trust, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Scottish Landowners Federation, as well as from the RSPB and SNH. Every word from the raptor working group report was agreed line by line by all parties—as one of the members, I can assure the committee of that. The report is very much an all-party product.

I draw attention to the creation of the moorland forum, which SNH established last year, and the fundamental role that the SGA will play in it. I expect the SGA to be party to any evidence or further research that the forum produces. That should allow the gamekeepers to be a part of the research, rather than challenging it from the outside, which is what they have done previously. We want the SGA to be part of the research so that the figures have its support.

The moorland forum is a way forward. It is a start, not a conclusion. However, it represents a positive way of involving the SGA in the process.