Inconsistencies in SNH's conservation of raptors

The poisoning of three red kites in Perthshire has rightly been condemned by everyone from the RSPB to game keepers.

But where do we draw the line? Apparently Scottish Natural Heritage think it's acceptable for wind turbines to kill these magnificent birds. Why do I say this? Because they have withdrawn their objection to a wind farm at Fairburn in Ross-shire because, according to SNH, "(the) loss of an additional one bird every one or two years, whilst not trivial, is going to be small in comparison with the likely loss of birds to the combined effects of persecution and natural mortality".

SNH admit mortality is already high enough to limit the northern population of red kites, so why support something that will make things worse? Simple, you introduce "appropriate mitigation" to reduce the killing. This amounts to "the bagging and removal of gralloch (deer offal) from the site". Their second "act of mitigation" is even more bizarre. "Post construction monitoring of red kite use of the wind farm area during its operation and associated mortality". Surely once the turbines are up, it's all going to be a bit late. What do SNH propose doing, having a quiet word with the red kites?

RICHARD HAVERS

Whitchester Lodge

By Duns, Berwickshire

In your report on the loss of a sea eagle on a grouse moor in Angus (4 December), Alex Hogg, chairman of the Scottish Gamekeepers Association, is stated as doubting that gamekeepers were involved, as [sea] eagles caused no problem on grouse moors. Has he inadvertently admitted that gamekeepers could be involved in cases when other birds of prey are killed on shooting estates?

NIGEL PALMER

Winton Grove

Edinburgh