Chino Moreno paid a surprise visit to Dees in the Trongate area, delighting the old school shop's staff.

Following yesterday’s news that NatureScot has imposed a(nother) three-year General Licence restriction on Raeshaw Estate in south Scotland (here), based on evidence provided by Police Scotland about the disappearance of satellite-tagged Golden Eagle ‘Merrick’, who police believe was ‘shot and killed’ (here), Raeshaw Estate has announced its intention to appeal NatureScot’s decision. Camera trap photo of golden eagle Merrick, from South Scotland Golden Eagle Project The following statement, attributed to a spokesperson for Raeshaw Estate, was reported in several newspapers yesterday: ‘ _The decision by NatureScot to restrict the estate’s general licence is wholly unjustified. We will challenge it vigorously through an appeal._ _We share the frustration felt by many about Merrick’s disappearance but there is no evidence the estate or any of its employees were in any way responsible._ _The estate has zero tolerance for raptor persecution and remains fully committed to respecting wildlife, nature and the environment._ _Merrick’s last established position was not on land owned or managed by our estate. The location was in a nearby wood where other parties have access and are permitted to shoot._ _No employee of the estate was charged as a result of a lengthy police investigation which concluded nearly 20 months ago_. _NatureScot has conceded there was an unacceptable delay in dealing with this case. We also provided expert veterinary testimony to NatureScot stating there was insufficient evidence to ascertain the bird had been killed by criminal means and that DNA analysis was inconclusive._ _In reaching its decision NatureScot confirmed the estate was not suspected of any other contraventions of land management regulations._ _This decision is even more disappointing given that NatureScot has acknowledged the estate is a supporter of the South of Scotland Golden Eagle Project._ _So much so, the estate recorded the presence of eagles on many occasions foraging and enjoying the safety and serenity of Raeshaw – something we dearly welcome._ _We also provided NatureScot with video evidence of these frequent visits_ ‘. **ENDS** **My commentary:** A lot of this reads like PR-bluster -damage-limitation-mumbo-jumbo to me. It’s difficult to comment in detail about the specifics of the evidence collected by Police Scotland and provided to NatureScot, as much of it isn’t in the public domain, although presumably has been provided to the representatives of Raeshaw Estate, which probably includes the estate’s management agency, which I believe is JM Osborne (and the estate is also listed on the William Powell Sporting website), both companies are owned by ‘grouse guru’ Mark Osborne. However, there are several aspects of the statement that can be discussed. For example: * ‘ _Merrick’s last established position was not on land owned or managed by our estate. The location was in a nearby wood where other parties have access and are permitted to shoot’._ It’s true that Merrick’s last established position (sleeping in a tree) was ‘not on land owned or managed’ by Raeshaw Estate, but it was close by. And it is known that some gamekeepers will trespass onto neighbouring land to commit an offence (e.g. see here). Now that doesn’t mean that somebody from Raeshaw _did_ do that, that’s not what I’m saying, but given the proximity to the estate boundary, it’s not inconceivable that this scenario _could_ have happened. _Screen grab fromWho Owns Scotland website, annotated by RPUK, showing the proximity of Merrick’s last known location and the Raeshaw Estate (shaded in blue)_ * ‘ _No employee of the estate was charged as a result of a lengthy police investigation which concluded nearly 20 months ago_ ‘. So what? A General Licence restriction isn’t reliant on somebody being charged. Indeed, GL restrictions were introduced by the Scottish Government in 2014 for the many situations where police evidence confirmed that raptor persecution had taken place but where there was insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution against a named individual. There’s no requirement for NatureScot to link an alleged offence to a specific individual; indeed, NatureScot always issues GL restrictions with an accompanying statement that says, ‘ _Please note that this restriction does not imply responsibility for the commission of crimes on any individuals’._ * ‘ _NatureScot has conceded there was an unacceptable delay in dealing with this case’._ So what? Yes, NatureScot did take far too long to reach this decision, but there isn’t a time limit for NatureScot to make a decision on GL restrictions so this statement is irrelevant. * ‘ _We also provided expert veterinary testimony to NatureScot stating there was insufficient evidence to ascertain the bird had been killed by criminal means and that DNA analysis was inconclusive’._ Er, I’m not sure how an ‘expert veterinary testimony’ could conclude anything about whether the eagle was ‘killed by criminal means’, or not, given that there wasn’t a body to examine! And from what I’ve heard, DNA analysis of the blood found at the scene came back as a match with Merrick’s DNA profile, so quite how that makes the analysis ‘inconclusive’ I don’t know! There was likely a 1 in several million chance that the blood wasn’t Merrick’s. * ‘ _In reaching its decision NatureScot confirmed the estate was not suspected of any other contraventions of land management regulations’._ Again, so what? It doesn’t need multiple ‘contraventions’ for a GL restriction to be imposed. This statement is irrelevant. * _‘…the estate recorded the presence of eagles on many occasions foraging and enjoying the safety and serenity of Raeshaw – something we dearly welcome._ _We also provided NatureScot with video evidence of these frequent visits_ ‘. Providing videos of eagles flying over an estate doesn’t prove anything other than that eagles are sometimes present. But we already knew that because Merrick’s satellite tag data showed she’d been there. It doesn’t mean that she couldn’t have been killed that night when roosting in a tree a few metres from the estate boundary. In the same way that the Conistone & Grassington Estate could have shown videos of Hen Harriers ‘enjoying the safety and serenity‘ of the estate, or the Hovingham Estate could have shown videos of Buzzards ‘enjoying the safety and serenity‘ of the estate, or the Moy Estate could have shown videos of Sparrowhawks ‘enjoying the safety and serenity‘ of the estate, or Fengate Farm could have shown videos of Buzzards and Goshawks ‘enjoying the safety and serenity‘ of the estate….I could go on but I’m sure you get the idea. * ‘ _The estate has zero tolerance for raptor persecution and remains fully committed to respecting wildlife, nature and the environment’._ Marvellous. Nevertheless, although it is true that nobody has ever been prosecuted for raptor persecution incidents on Raeshaw Estate, and I have no doubt that JM Osborne, as an experienced sporting agency, has a written policy, maybe even a contractual obligation, for the need for its employees to comply with the law, it is still a fact that there have been a substantial number of confirmed/suspected raptor persecution incidents recorded in the area (see list created in 2017, here), dating back over a 25-year period. As part of NatureScot’s decision-making process for General Licence Restrictions (the Framework), one of the criteria assessed is, ‘Any history of previous, similar instances’. Given that Raeshaw Estate has already served one previous General Licence restriction (2015-2018, see here), then it seems reasonable to me that NatureScot is entitled to consider those earlier incidents when deciding whether to impose another GL restriction on this estate, regardless of whatever claims an estate makes about loving wildlife. It doesn’t mean that NatureScot is stating that someone/an individual connected to Raeshaw Estate is responsible for shooting/killing Merrick – it simply means that NatureScot has lost confidence in the use of light-touch regulation (the General Licences) on the estate. Of course, Raeshaw Estate is fully entitled to appeal NatureScot’s latest decision. That, too, is enshrined in NatureScot’s GL Restriction Framework. Other estates with General Licence Restrictions imposed have appealed those decisions over the years but as far as I’m aware, none of the appeals have been upheld. For example: Leadhills Estate loses appeal (this is hilarious – here) Leadhills Estate loses another appeal (this time against an extension to its GL restriction) (here) Moy Estate loses appeal (here) Invercauld Estate loses appeal (here) Lochan Estate loses appeal (here) If Raeshaw Estate is going to appeal, it will have to do so in writing to Naturescot within 14 days. According to the GL Restriction Framework, ‘ _An appeal shall have the effect of suspending the restriction from the date the appeal is received by the Head of Licensing until the date of the Decision on Appeal…_ ‘. NatureScot advises that it will seek to make a decision on an appeal within four weeks of receipt. ### Share this: * Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook * Share on X (Opens in new window) X * Share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Reddit * Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn * Share on Bluesky (Opens in new window) Bluesky *

The Genocide Convention imposes obligations on states and individuals not just to punish the crime of genocide but to actively prevent it. Two years into the war in Gaza and over 20 months since th…

The eagle had been relocated from the Outer Hebrides to the Borders