• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Poisoners target a rising number of birds and animals (1 Viewer)

Chris Monk

Well-known member
From The Scotsman 18/9/2004:

Poisoners target a rising number of birds and animals

JAMES REYNOLDS ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT


DELIBERATE illegal poisoning of birds and animals in Scotland has increased again and is posing a direct threat to the survival of some of our most iconic species, conservationists have warned.

A new report from the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency reveals that 32 raptors and wild mammals were intentionally killed with the use of poisonous chemicals in 2003, compared with only 23 in 2002 and 25 in 2001.

The figure represents 86 per cent of known pesticide incidents, a "significant" rise on the 2002 figure of 56 per cent, and 71 per cent in 2001, the report says.

However, investigations officers from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds believe that the actual number of incidents could be far higher than those detected. The report, Pesticide Poisoning of Animals 2003, reveals there were 152 suspected poisoning incidents registered for examination by the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme in Scotland last year.

The causes were successfully determined in 64 cases. Of those, 37 involved pesticide poisoning or exposure to pesticides, with 32 judged to be deliberate.

Buzzards, red kites, sparrowhawks, peregrine falcons and sea eagles are just some of the birds which fell victim to the poisoners. Domestic pets were also victims of the increase, with ten dogs and cats included in the final count of 32.

Carbofuran, an agricultural pesticide normally drilled into the soil to avoid any human or wildlife contact because it is so poisonous, was the most abused poison.

The report concluded: "As in all previous years, the illegal practice of deliberately abusing pesticide products to generate poisonous baits claimed numerous victims. Such acts remain the cause of the majority of pesticide-related poisonings throughout the UK. The indiscriminate nature of the process puts at risk any animal that finds the bait material attractive."

Keith Morton, an investigations officer for RSPB Scotland, said deliberate poisoning was directly responsible for killing many red kites brought to Scotland as part of a programme to reintroduce the species. He believed that if poisoning was not a continuing problem, the population of red kites could approach 100 breeding pairs. However, there are still only around 50 breeding pairs.

Mr Morton said: "Poisoning is far less acceptable than it was 30 years ago, and certainly the agricultural community really don’t indulge in this sort of activity any more. It is a small number of mavericks, and in the main the gamekeeping side of things, where the problem still exists. It is still a serious problem.

"Undoubtedly it is still going on and at a level that is capable of damaging birds of prey."

However, Burt Burnett, a spokesman for, and committee member of, the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, rejected the claims.

He said: "We are not happy with the fact that the RSPB continually lays the blame for these sorts of incidents squarely with gamekeepers, and try to vilify us. To accuse us all with a broad sweep of their hand is unfair."
 
But was there not a comment made during the anti fox hunting talks,that poison could be put down to kill the foxes.A truly senseless and stupid statement.
 
Quote:
(He said: "We are not happy with the fact that the RSPB continually lays the blame for these sorts of incidents squarely with gamekeepers, and try to vilify us. To accuse us all with a broad sweep of their hand is unfair.")

Not me MiLud, I was somewhere else. Come on, we all know who's to blame don't we.

nirofo.
 
nirofo said:
Quote:
(He said: "We are not happy with the fact that the RSPB continually lays the blame for these sorts of incidents squarely with gamekeepers, and try to vilify us. To accuse us all with a broad sweep of their hand is unfair.")

Not me MiLud, I was somewhere else. Come on, we all know who's to blame don't we.

nirofo.

Hi nirofo,

Sounds a bit like 'Guilty until proven innocent' to me. We might like to think that we know who's to blame in such cases but, given Christine's excellent comment about poisoning foxes instead of hunting them, how can we ever be certain what the intended target might have been? For example, fox eats poisoned bait and dies. Crow eats dead fox and dies. Buzzard eats dead crow and dies. A bit simplistic perhaps but I know you'll get the point!

Anthony
 
"Sounds a bit like 'Guilty until proven innocent' to me."

It does indeed, however, I believe it is correct to consider gamekeepers as prime suspects as in the relatively few cases were it has been possible to bring prosecutions it is gamekeepers who have been accused, found guilty and fined. There are really only three possible suspects in such cases, gamekeepers, farmers (i.e. trying to use poison to control foxes when they already have a legal right to shoot them) and mavericks who just get a buzz out of poisoning things.

Dave
 
Chris Monk said:
From The Scotsman 18/9/2004:

Poisoners target a rising number of birds and animals

JAMES REYNOLDS ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT


DELIBERATE illegal poisoning of birds and animals in Scotland has increased again and is posing a direct threat to the survival of some of our most iconic species, conservationists have warned.

A new report from the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency reveals that 32 raptors and wild mammals were intentionally killed with the use of poisonous chemicals in 2003, compared with only 23 in 2002 and 25 in 2001.

The figure of 32 is of course only the number of intentional killings that we are aware of. How many more go undetected? When a gamekeeper/farmer/maverick lays down a poisoned bait, there can be very few instances where a third party finds it and the victim before the perpetrator returns to retrieve them.

Last month I was doing a bird survey for a local farmer when I found a dead Buzzard lying next to a Pheasant chick. I went back to the car for my camera but in the meantime the farmer had found them himself and removed them as he was concerned about the cattle in the field.

It turns out that this is the seventh incident on his and his neighbour's land in the last couple of years. There have been several dead Buzzards and a Peregrine. He is very angry about it, but as he is the tenant of a large estate on which Pheasant rearing and shooting is big business, he has been reluctant to take any action. This time the corpses have had a post mortem and tissue samples sent for analysis. The Police and RSPB are now involved (although the chances of a prosecution are just about zilch).

It does highlight what I said earlier, that the vast majority of poisoning incidents are never reported.

Andy
 
Aquila said:
The figure of 32 is of course only the number of intentional killings that we are aware of. How many more go undetected? When a gamekeeper/farmer/maverick lays down a poisoned bait, there can be very few instances where a third party finds it and the victim before the perpetrator returns to retrieve them.

Andy

Hi Andy,

I understand what you are saying but for this to happen the poison would need to be very fast acting and cause almost instantaneous death for the different species to be found that close to each other. I was thinking more of a bird or animal beginning to feel unwell either during or after feeding on a bait and moving away before eventually dying elsewhere. If anything, this adds weight to your argument, because an unknown number of other third party 'victims' of the poison, perhaps including the original one, will never be known. They will also be in addition to the ones retrieved by the perpetrator, therefore the true number of 'kills' could be much higher than first imagined.
 
Hi Anthony

I think you'll find most of the poisons involved in the indiscriminate killing of wildlife are fairly fast acting! I've seen several instances where a succession of creatures have succumbed in close proximity to a single poison bait, strychnine was well known for it and although it isn't used so much these days it still happens. The poison takes a long time (if at all) to break down and can be passed along the food chain to other scavenging birds or animals, occasionally ending up killing the keepers or farmers dog.

nirofo.
 
nirofo said:
Hi Anthony

I think you'll find most of the poisons involved in the indiscriminate killing of wildlife are fairly fast acting! I've seen several instances where a succession of creatures have succumbed in close proximity to a single poison bait, strychnine was well known for it and although it isn't used so much these days it still happens. The poison takes a long time (if at all) to break down and can be passed along the food chain to other scavenging birds or animals, occasionally ending up killing the keepers or farmers dog.

nirofo.

Hi nirofo,

We're certainly on the same wavelength here. However, my additional concern is the effect that a bait placed either in woodland or some other cover (crops etc.) might have, rather than one placed in open countryside. For even if the original bait and any visible victims are removed, there could still be others concealed quite close by, yet each capable of extending the indiscriminate killing of far more species than the one the poison was originally intended for. And as you so rightly point out, this is not the time to try to locate them with a dog!

Anthony
 
Anthony Morton said:
Hi nirofo,

Sounds a bit like 'Guilty until proven innocent' to me. We might like to think that we know who's to blame in such cases but, given Christine's excellent comment about poisoning foxes instead of hunting them, how can we ever be certain what the intended target might have been? For example, fox eats poisoned bait and dies. Crow eats dead fox and dies. Buzzard eats dead crow and dies. A bit simplistic perhaps but I know you'll get the point!

Anthony

I would tend to take a wider view Anthony, poisoning is poisoning no matter how you dress it up. I would not say it is exclusively gamekeepers but surely a fast-acting poison would infer this. After all, if you were engaged in poisoning raptors, your interests would not be best served by a buzzard flying several miles before dying. If it were a farmer poisoning foxes then there is absolutely no need to use a fast-acting poison because it would not really matter if the animal went to ground.
 
Ian Peters said:
I would tend to take a wider view Anthony, poisoning is poisoning no matter how you dress it up. I would not say it is exclusively gamekeepers but surely a fast-acting poison would infer this. After all, if you were engaged in poisoning raptors, your interests would not be best served by a buzzard flying several miles before dying. If it were a farmer poisoning foxes then there is absolutely no need to use a fast-acting poison because it would not really matter if the animal went to ground.

Hi Ian,

I certainly agree with your sentiments about poisoning but can't help thinking that you've perhaps missed the point that 'nirofo' and I were discussing. This was not so much concerning the undoubted speed with which a fast-acting poison (such as strychnine) can kill but the fact that the original dose can go on killing time and time again through a number of different hosts. Using your example, if a farmer puts down a bait laced with poison he cannot be certain that his intended victim, in this case a fox, is going to be the ONLY animal (or bird!) to feed on it. So in effect this one bait can set-up a chain of potential killers unless it, and ALL its victim(s), are collected and properly disposed of.

Worse still, if they are not collected before they in turn are eaten, then each and every victim of the original bait also becomes another potential killer, because the level of poison it has ingested is still more than capable of killing again if it is eaten. And as 'nirofo' has indicated, because strychnine does not break down easily it can be passed on several times (I seem to recall hearing/reading SEVEN times - but I'm not sure where) through a succession of different species, with each new victim receiving a fatal dose.

My concern is that even if the farmer checks the bait regularly and removes any victims he finds before they in turn can be eaten by a predator, there is always the possibility that one will be missed. Don't forget that in your example he would be looking for a dead fox and so might either miss or not take any notice of the dead crow, or cat, or buzzard etc. close by, even if he could see them. Picking up on another good point made by 'nirofo', the farmer can't even risk using his dog to locate more possible victims, because by either retrieving the victim, or even just licking a partially eaten corpse could well be enough to add the dog to the ever-growing list of kills. And if he has been foolish enough to handle any of the corpses he finds, the farmer would be well advised not to lick his finger either!
 
Last edited:
Anthony Morton said:
I certainly agree with your sentiments about poisoning but can't help thinking that you've perhaps missed the point that 'nirofo' and I were discussing.

Hi Anthony,

I was more picking up on your point about the rush to blame gamekeepers and I am sorry if my post did not reflect that fact. I agree with everything you say and I would be interested to know how many farmers do this. Potentially, I could see a cynical farmer using gamekeeping as a screen in some cases.
 
Ian Peters said:
Hi Anthony,

I was more picking up on your point about the rush to blame gamekeepers and I am sorry if my post did not reflect that fact. I agree with everything you say and I would be interested to know how many farmers do this. Potentially, I could see a cynical farmer using gamekeeping as a screen in some cases.

For many years 'keepers used alpha-chloralose as the poison of choice, which works in a similar way to many of the rodenticide anticoagulants and was certainly not an instantaneous killer. I think carbamate pesticided, such as Carbofuran, are more common-place these days - I don't think these kill instantly either, though I may well be wrong.

I'd suggest it isn't only 'keepers who are guilty of poisoning raptors - farmers too are sometimes to blame. On the west coast of Scotland I occasionally met hill farmers who were positively paranoid about predators - two or four legged. Predators undoubtably do kill lambs (and adult ewes at times), but bad husbandry is often to blame. I usually found the worse the farmer, the more he blamed predators for his dying stock. Believe me, it's extremely shocking to find an eyeless ewe wandering around the hillside after a hoody or raven has been to work on it (pregnant ewes especially sometimes manage to cast themselves on their backs, making it easy for the corvids to remove their eyes), but often ewes would be put at risk by situations which were preventable with a little work (eg. getting stuck in bramble, ditches, loose fencing, etc.). I was asked on occasions to 'deal with' protected predators, but always refused. Unfortunately however, many farms have tubs and tins of the most lethal substances one can imagine, often many years old, stored away in sheds and barns that they could easily use to poison predators. Some farmers either don't have the time or inclination to shoot foxes or hoodies, haven't the skill required to set a snare or a cage trap or can't or don't want to pay someone to do the job for them - so what's the easiest option? These people are few and far between IMO but, like unscrupulous 'keepers, there's always the bad apple.

saluki
 
Hi Saluki

I agree wholeheartedly your point about farmers blaming birds of prey for their own bad husbandry, particularly Golden Eagles. I know of several eyries which have failed year in year out due to local shepherds blaming them for all their lamb losses, when it was obvious to anyone who cared to look that the animals were poorly cared for! I've found, photographed and reported to those who should have been concerned but did nothing, gin traps set in nest, poisoned lamb in nest with dead young (young didn't die of poisoning, they starved to death), rabbit snares set in nest, eyries set on fire. These were not keepers doing this, it was local shepherds, they even admit it privately!!

nirofo.
 
nirofo said:
Hi Saluki

I agree wholeheartedly your point about farmers blaming birds of prey for their own bad husbandry, particularly Golden Eagles. I know of several eyries which have failed year in year out due to local shepherds blaming them for all their lamb losses, when it was obvious to anyone who cared to look that the animals were poorly cared for! I've found, photographed and reported to those who should have been concerned but did nothing, gin traps set in nest, poisoned lamb in nest with dead young (young didn't die of poisoning, they starved to death), rabbit snares set in nest, eyries set on fire. These were not keepers doing this, it was local shepherds, they even admit it privately!!

nirofo.


bam. there you go. good info. (not good but important info) its sad people take advantage of the situation, (i.e. piosoning raptors.)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 20 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top