Preying on alarmist view

Published on Wednesday 6 August 2008 21:05

It was truly alarming to read your headline "Landowners demand the right to kill birds of prey as numbers grow" (5 August).

This sort of portrayal of landowners in relation to conservation is completely misleading and in no way reflects our approach to land management or animal welfare.

The Scottish Estates Business Group (SEBG), which represents Scotland's leading progressive estates, fully supports the work that is being undertaken by a unique partnership at Langholm. Here the Buccleuch Estates with RSPB, SNH, Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust and Natural England are seeking to demonstrate that a management solution within existing legal frameworks can be found to sustain viable grouse moors and raptor populations. It is essential that this project be allowed to run its course so that we can get some science behind what are controversial issues.

On wildlife crime, SEBG has made its position very clear – it is emphatically against wildlife crime of any kind and condemns any illegal activity. The group expects its members to adhere to best practice. A member convicted of a wildlife crime will have their membership withdrawn. SEBG is committed to playing its part in helping to eradicate wildlife crime in Scotland and ensuring best practice is adhered to rigorously and demonstrated clearly.

RICHARD WILLIAMSON

Scottish Estates Business Group

Silvermills Court

Edinburgh

I would like to know how landowners can demand anything: birds of prey are part of the natural environment; they are not a commodity that can be manipulated to suit personal needs or wishes. Landowners have already altered the natural balance in the environment by releasing large numbers of non-indigenous species for game shooting purposes (pheasants, red-legged partridge). It is only natural that birds of prey will use this resource to some extent.

Tim Baynes, of the Scottish Countryside Alliance, suggests buzzards and goshawks are becoming unmanageable. They are not there to be managed by people; they have managed themselves for centuries, even surviving the extensive persecution that was and still is being carried out against them.

Douglas McAdam, of the Scottish Rural Property and Business Association, states that "no single species should have more protection than any other species". I think what he means is that no bird of prey should have more protection than a game bird, which is what is driving this debate, and the mention of other species being affected is merely a smokescreen.

I trust Scottish Natural Heritage will scientifically review any evidence before making a decision on this issue.

GEORGE SMITH

Meadowbank Road

Kirknewton, West Lothian