BY BERT BURNETT

Dear Editor,

According to the RSPB, satellite tags affixed to eagles’ backs are deemed entirely reliable. When they cease to function, it indicates a high likelihood of foul play, suggesting that the tracker has been intentionally disabled and destroyed. In the event of the bird’s natural demise, the RSPB asserts their ability to locate the deceased bird through its tracker.

Currently, every bird whose tracker has ceased to function (and cannot be traced) is being attributed to gamekeepers throughout the UK. This attribution lacks substantiation, relying solely on assumptions. Such assertions are used to mislead both the public and politicians alike, insinuating that any untraceable bird has fallen victim to foul play within the grouse shooting industry.

Herein lies a prime example of the fallibility of such assumptions:

Consider this “missing” sea eagle, presumed missing due to its inactive tracker, which would have otherwise facilitated its discovery by the RSPB. Discovered by a shepherd in a sheep park, the eagle had clearly been there for some time, evident from its decomposition, beetle infestation, and grass covering. Was this eagle included in the “missing” list promoted as part of the RSPB’s anti-shooting campaign? Without access to confidential data, it remains uncertain.

What is apparent is that the efficacy of these trackers is not as impeccable as the RSPB portrays. Despite the eagle’s last known location, its remains were found elsewhere, suggesting a failure in the tracking system. This discrepancy raises doubts about the industry’s culpability when birds go off radar.

Attributing missing eagles to industry persecution serves as a publicity tactic to advance the RSPB’s agenda of moorland management control and increased donations. It’s imperative for politicians and others to realize they’re being manipulated on this issue, inadvertently perpetuating a significant ecological scam.

Each “missing” bird, as reported by the RSPB, is depicted as a victim of persecution. However, without physical evidence, such assertions lack credibility. Whether the bird perished due to electrocution, turbine collision, natural causes, or predator activity, it’s automatically labelled as persecution.

One must question the integrity of the RSPB’s actions. Could they not, hypothetically, deactivate a tag signal upon discovering a bird’s natural demise, then claim it “disappeared under suspicious circumstances”? The absence of checks and balances in this system allows for unchecked assertions and undermines accountability.

In conclusion, Dear Editor, there is a glaring lack of accountability and transparency in the RSPB’s practices. Without oversight, they wield unchecked influence, leaving room for doubt and manipulation. For all we know, a bird could perish at sea, and the RSPB would refuse to search for it.

Yours sincerely,

Bert Burnett

(Retired Gamekeeper, Scotland)