Scottish Wildcat Action (SWA) Specialist Report - Land Management

This report should be cited as: Campbell, R.D., Kortland, K., Strong, R., Tallach, N., Cumberbirch J. and Mason, G. (2023). Scottish Wildcat Action final report: Land Management. NatureScot, Inverness.

Authors and instituions: Roo Campbell, Scottish Wildcat Action, Kenny Kortland, Forestry and Land Scotland, Rebekah Strong, Scottish Land & Estates, Nicola Tallach, Scottish Wildcat Action, Jackie Cumberbirch, Forestry and Land Scotland, Gareth Mason, Forestry and Land Scotland.

Keywords

Game management; forestry; agriculture; construction; prey; GPS-tagging; artificial dens; rodenticides; barns.

Background to SWA

The Scottish Wildcat Conservation Action Plan (SWCAP) was published in 2013 following the input of over 20 partner organisations. This led to the establishment of the Scottish Wildcat Action (SWA) project that ran from 2015-2020, funded by the Scottish Government, National Lottery Heritage Fund and others. SWA operated with a team of project staff managed by NatureScot, and associated work was carried out by various partner organisations. The overall work programme was steered by a group made up of ten of the partners. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Cat Specialist Group reviewed the work of the SWA, and other ongoing wildcat conservation work, and provided recommendations for future action (Breitenmoser et al., 2019). A wide range of topics relevant to wildcat conservation were covered during the SWA, and have now been published as a series of reports, of which this is one. These outputs will inform the next phase of wildcat conservation work in Scotland, including the SavingWildcats ‘SWAforLife’ project that runs from 2019-2026. 

Wildcats hybridise with domestic cats and we use a combination of morphology and genetics to distinguish wildcats from domestic cats and their hybrids. The method applied is generally determined by the practicalities of management. For example, it is much easier to have high confidence in the pelage scores from a sedated cat, than from a camera-trap image taken at night. Genetic and pelage results can only be generated jointly in certain scenarios. Therefore, identifications under different situations have different levels of confidence associated with them. We therefore set different thresholds for identification of wildcats based on the ability to distinguish pelage and genetic characteristics in different situations. The confidence hierarchy, and the definitions used in this report, are given below.

A ‘wildcat’ in this report is defined at level 4 by a cat with a pelage threshold of 17+. Genetic information is not available for all cats and so is not used in population size assessments.

Background 

How the living and working landscape of Scotland is managed has played an important role in the current conservation status of the wildcat (Felis silvestris) and it will continue to do so in the future.

Hybridisation and the presence of feral cats and hybrids in wildcat habitats is recognised as the main threat to the survival of the wildcat in Scotland. However, a combination of other threats linked to the management of the land have no doubt contributed to the wildcat’s problems. These include habitat loss or fragmentation and the killing of wildcats, particularly prior to their legal protection. 

Wildcats require a mosaic of suitable habitats with sufficient cover in which to hunt, shelter and breed. Changes to the land use, habitat fragmentation and degradation all pose potential threats to wildcat numbers, in addition to the ongoing management activities being undertaken as part of estate, forestry or agricultural operations. However, past or ongoing land management in some areas may help create habitat suitable for wildcats. For example, the rotational clear-felling of commercial conifer plantations can create a mixture of prey and cover habitat combinations that wildcats use, while traditional farming practices may have allowed wildcats to exist historically in some areas that were otherwise poor habitat.

Summary of work

• Ahead of the project, land management was recognised as of key importance to wildcat conservation. Threats identified included those from game management, forestry and agriculture. Construction work in wildcat areas could also impact on wildcats.

Game management

• Wildcats are legally protected under a 1988 amendment to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. Feral domestic cats are not protected under the act and can be shot legally by gamekeepers during predator control. However, hybridisation with domestic cats means that reliably distinguishing wildcats from feral domestic cats and hybrids is difficult and the accidental shooting of wildcats misidentified by gamekeepers is a recognised threat. Conversely, legitimate control of feral cats by gamekeepers may play a role in mitigating the threat of further hybridisation from domestic cats if conducted appropriately.

• A protocol for ‘wildcat-friendly’ predator control (WFPC) was first developed under the Cairngorms Wildcat Project and promoted under this project. In essence, the protocol discourages the use of spot-lighting (or lamping) at night for cat control, encouraging instead the use of cage-trapping, so that the cat can be more reliably identified and, if thought to be a wildcat, released. We asked the Moorland Forum to review the WFPC, and an updated version was added to the Moorland Management best practice website.

• We identified an emerging threat to wildcats from thermal-imaging-assisted night-shooting. Wildcats cannot be identified reliably using this technology. We produced a leaflet highlight the risk of lamping and thermal-image-assisted night-time shooting, distributing this at events and to land management partners in 2018-2019.

• Project staff built relationships with estate managers within the Priority Areas (PAs) over the course of the project. We loaned trail cameras to five estates to enable identification of wildcats ahead of any predator control they were planning.

• Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP) funding was also available to any estates in the PAs to purchase and maintain their own trail cameras and cage traps. However, there was no successful take-up of this funding option. Following a questionnaire survey of 15 landowners, we identified that lack of awareness of the fund, low value and onerousness of requirements were all factors, but that landowners would consider applying to a revised scheme. Any future scheme would require more staff resources to promote it and a review of its value. Changes in land-use constraints may also help; the option is currently restricted to moorland whereas outside summer, wildcats more often use wooded habitats.

• To engage with land managers, staff and volunteers set up project stands, hosted by project partners, at targeted events such as the Highland Field Sports Fair (Moy), the Scottish Game Fair (Scone), The Black Isle Show and local shows. We published blogs and articles with land management partners (e.g. Scottish Land & Estate’s LandBusiness, British Association for Shooting and Conservation’s Shooting and Conservation, and the website of Shooting and Country Sports UK). Throughout 2019 we also ran a regular column in Shooting Scotland magazine. We revamped the wildcat ID cards popular with gamekeepers during the Cairngorms Wildcat Project, distributing these at events and with partners.

• By 2018 engagement with WFPC remained low. Reasons for this included lack of interest from some estates, an underestimate by the project of the staff time and resource needed by the project to engage with, build relationships and work with estates, or simply that some estates do not conduct predator control using methods that put wildcats at risk. To help improve engagement, we set up a land management subgroup towards the end of 2018. One task agreed by the subgroup was to have gamekeepers trial the WFPC method to inform its future development and encourage uptake of the protocol. Seven gamekeepers in the Angus Glens were involved and the trial took place over the summer. Feedback indicated that some gamekeepers may not be confident enough to identify wildcats in traps and future work could include developing a wildcat identification training video.

Forestry

• We worked closely with Forestry and Land Scotland (FLS) to investigate a range of habitat management measures in commercial forestry areas and to promote wildcat-friendly forestry practice.

• FLS and SWA staff produced an awareness leaflet for forestry contractors working in forests containing wildcats, which was distributed to all forestry contractors and all relevant FLS operational staff.

• Surveys of rodent prey were carried out in Clashindarroch Forest in the Strathbogie Priority Area. The aims of this work were to determine the relative abundance of three common species of rodents in three typical habitats found in commercial plantations; unfelled stands of timber, restocked (i.e. replanted) areas, and clear-fells.  Bank vole were most common in unfelled stands of timber and field voles in felled areas. Wood mice were found in low numbers mainly in felled and unfelled stands.  Felled areas with high numbers of field voles likely offer the best foraging areas for wildcats. This is being confirmed by the results of the WildCRU GPS-tagging study of wildcats in forest habitats. Although bank voles are present in high numbers in the forest, they occur in habitats that are less suited to wildcat hunting (e.g. unfelled and un-thinned Sitka spruce stands). Longer-term monitoring has now been established through FLS to track annual population fluctuations in the field vole, which is thought to be the most important rodent prey species.

• From current knowledge, it would appear that timber production and wildcat conservation may be compatible where plantations consist of a mosaic of habitats that are suitable for wildcats.

• FLS constructed a total of 63 artificial dens of varying design, 30 in the Angus Glens PA, and 33 in the Strathbogie PA. FLS staff and SWA volunteers used camera traps to monitor 17 of the artificial dens for 10,490 camera days. No wildcat activity was noted in any of the artificial dens. Results so far indicate that provision of artificial dens is not a useful mitigation or conservation action. These artificial dens may however be used by wildcats in the future as they settle into the landscape.

• FLS Environment Rangers worked with SWA field staff and wildcat biologists to develop and improve pre-operational surveys for wildcats, and to enhance mitigation measures to lessen the potential impact of forest operations on wildcats. Enhanced pre-operational surveys were developed, with increased deployment of camera traps, and new restrictions on felling operations were introduced as a precautionary measure. 

• FLS approaches to pre-operational surveys and mitigation will be revised according to the results of the ongoing WildCRU GPS-tagging project. An overall assessment and comparison of the benefits to wildcats and the issues created for the local timber industry will need to be carried out by FLS, in order to judge if such measures are worth rolling out more widely. From our experiences and data collected during the project camera surveys and GPS-tagging, the Scottish Forestry (formerly FCS) Guidance Note 35d: Forest operations and wildcats in Scotland will be revised.

Agriculture

• Through a student placement we conducted a questionnaire survey of 147 farmers and crofters relating to their management of cats and farm pests. The responses were biased towards smaller farms and crofts and showed low (20%) use of rodenticides. The most commonly used chemicals were second generation rodenticides that present the greatest secondary poisoning risk. Most farms and crofts did not use professional pest controllers, though 90% took some measures to reduce poisoning risk. The most common non-chemical pest control methods were the use of cats. Cats weren’t seen as a predation threat against livestock (e.g. poultry), unlike foxes and crows. Though most respondents did not conduct predator control, some (30%) used shooting or lamping (11%), the latter a potential threat to wildcats.

• Through an MSc project, we assessed the levels of rodenticide in the livers of 49 wild-living cats collected on roads. 61% showed rodenticide residues, nearly half of which presented residues above the toxic level recognised for other mammals and birds. The most prevalent rodenticides detected were second generation rodenticides.

• Following this study, we ran regular columns in Farming Scotland magazine, over 2019-2020. These highlighted the risks to wildcats from rodenticides and encouraged readers to follow the code set out by the Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use. We also discussed wildcats’ use of barns for denning and habitat management techniques farmers could adopt to benefit wildcats.

Development

• We provided advice and wildcat records to ecological consultants involved in construction projects over the course of the project. Information gained from the camera surveys and GPS collaring study will be used to update the guidance available on the nature.scot website.

General

We held a Sharing Good Practice event aimed at consultant ecologists, developers, foresters and gamekeepers. Few gamekeepers attended and therefore the discussion focused on ecological surveys, developments and forestry.

Acknowledgements

The SWA project was supported by the National Lottery Heritage Fund.

It was also funded by the Scottish Government, NatureScot and the Royal Zoological Society of Scotland. Support and resources for associated work was also provided by all the Steering Group members: Cairngorms National Park Authority, Forestry and Land Scotland, National Museums Scotland (NMS), Scottish Land & Estates, NatureScot, Scottish Wildlife Trust, The National Trust for Scotland, The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, The Scottish Gamekeepers Association, The Scottish Government, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU). In addition, Jenny Bryce and Fiona Strachan helped develop the project while Eileen Stuart, Alan Bantick and Andrew Kitchener chaired the Steering Group.

Additional sponsors, funders and contributors to SWA work included Aigas Field Centre, Ailsa Black, British Association for Shooting and Conservation, Cairngorm Brewery Company, Chester Zoo, Roy Dennis Wildlife Foundation, John Muir Trust, Loch Lomond & The Trossachs National Park, Lukas Ruiter Production, MyPetOnline, NFU Scotland, petDetect, RSPB, Scotland The Big Picture, Swift Ecology and The Highland Council.

We are also very grateful to the many academics, landowners, captive collection managers, veterinary specialists and others who contributed valuable time and effort, members of the public who contributed funds and support, and in particular the many volunteers who got involved in the project.

This was a wide-ranging body of work involving the input of many people involved in land management. Many land managers across the project PAs assisted us in our work in some form. Particular thanks to the gamekeepers who took the time to meet with us and discuss predator control and other land management issues; the forestry staff who contributed to the discussion on improving forest management; the farmers who took the time to respond to our questionnaire survey; those who organised and attended the Sharing Good Practice event; and all those who worked with us to conserve, monitor and research the wildcats on their land. Martha Gavan conducted the questionnaire survey through the East of Scotland Bioscience Doctoral Training Partnership (part of the Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council’s Doctoral Training Partnerships). Thanks to Athole Murray Fleming for providing space for regular wildcat columns in the Farming Scotland and Shooting Scotland magazines. In addition to those named above, The Scottish Association for Country Sports provide valuable input into our work on land management.

1. Introduction 

 

We published blogs and articles with land management partners (e.g. Scottish Land and Estate’s (SLE) LandBusiness magazine, British Association for Shooting and Conservation’s (BASC) Shooting and Conservation magazine, and the website of the Scottish Association for Country Sports (SACS). We also collaborated with Athole Design & Publishing Ltd to write a column in their Shooting Scotland magazine throughout 2019. This took the form of an opening article introducing the project and the key issues around wildcat conservation, followed by two articles that drew on the research the partnership was conducting. Firstly, the use of grouse moor by wildcats during summer, as illustrated by the GPS data on a cat in the Angus Glens and written by Dr Kerry Kilshaw of the WildCRU at the University of Oxford. This article highlighted the need to follow the WFPC protocol. Secondly, an article on the risks to wildcats from rodenticide use as revealed by our analysis of cat livers, written by Lydia Peters of The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies at the University of Edinburgh. While this latter piece did not promote the protocol, it introduced another topic relevant to wildcat conservation that game managers could help with.

We worked with the Moorland Forum and Principles of Moorland Management (PoMM) project, now Moorland Management Best Practice (MMBP) to review the WFPC. The main objective of MMBP is to publish guidance as a resource for land managers to help them in their management of moorland and upland areas. Following review, the WFPC was published on the Moorland Forum’s guidance webpage, now the MMBP website.

During the course of the project, we identified a new threat from the use of emerging technologies to assist in predator control. In particular, the use of thermal imaging scopes in place of spotlights for shooting predators could present a high risk to wildcats. We created a guidance leaflet to inform land managers of the risks, along with images taken from thermal imaging scopes (Figure 2) and distributed this to land management partners and at events.

Finally, as part of the #generationwildcat campaign, we created a page on our website that provide some key information to land managers including highlighting the risks from thermal scope assisted shooting and giving links to the WFPC and the Code for Responsible Rodenticide Use (CRRU) (see section 4. below for further details of the latter).

2.3.2  Engagement with estates in PAs

Project staff built relationships with gamekeepers and other estate staff during the course of the project. This we generally instigated through the need for access or help to conduct cat surveys, though the project’s presence at local events also allowed us to make contact with relevant local landowners and managers. Sometimes, finding the right contact proved difficult and partner organisations or estates we had already engaged with were helpful in establishing contact. By the end of the first year, we had already engaged with most of the estates in the PAs (Figure 3). The notable exception to this was in the Angus Glens, where we did not succeed in building relationships with some of the estates until the third year of the project (see 2.3.5). In addition to access for surveys, we discussed with estates the wider wildcat conservation issues and particularly risks from predator control practices such as lamping. Establishing trust with estates and other landowners/managers can take longer however, and where possible we invested time in ensuring that estates received feedback from us, such as sharing with them results of surveys conducted by staff and volunteers on their ground.

 

Though we had broad engagement with landowners and land managers, the extent of this varied. With some estates, we developed good working relationships. For example, one estate at the edge of the Strathavon PA asked the Project Officer to help identify several cats captured in cage traps during predator control. Following engagement, several estates adopted WFPC methods and we were asked to help identify captured cats on several other estates across the project’s PAs. Other estates provided access for volunteers to conduct camera surveys, or participated in the surveys themselves, but not all of these allowed us later access to capture cats detected during the surveys, whether for genetic screening and collaring of wildcats or neutering of feral cats and hybrids. The main reason cited for this was that, understandably, the estate conducted predator control and did not want neutered cats released back on to their ground, which they would later need to kill. Indeed, there is a welfare issue around the project trapping and neutering a feral cat if there is a risk it will be killed during later predator control. The project’s policy was that if a feral cat or hybrid were accidentally trapped while attempting to capture a wildcat, the individual would have to be neutered, vaccinated and returned to the point of capture. Thus, estates sometimes refused permission to trap even if we were intending to capture a wildcat. Overall, we found estates in areas with less gamebird management, such as Morvern and Strathpeffer, were more amenable to trapping.

Following GPS collaring data (see the Ecology report) that showed one of the collared cats had moved from forestry ground in winter on to grouse moor in the Angus Glens over the summer, we made contact with the estate on which the cat was living on. Some partners such as SLE also included the story in their newsletters. By the following winter, the cat had returned to the lower forestry ground.

2.3.3  Training for land managers

Project staff provided individual informal training for land managers in PAs. We approached Northern College, University of the Highlands and Islands (Thurso) to establish what additional training or resources could be provided by SWA. However, UHI already incorporate advice on avoiding impacts on wildcats so we did not pursue this further. Nevertheless, the rarity of wildcats relative to hybrids, found through the project’s work, suggests that the levels of experience contained within the game-keeping community in identifying wildcats will be in decline. Ensuring young gamekeepers are familiar with wildcat identification and the WFPC protocol and incorporating these into an online training course in future training is needed. To this end, NatureScot, SLE and BASC are working to create an online training tool to be completed in 2021.

2.3.4  Resources for land managers

Between March 2016 and September 2018 we kept a project-wide record of loans of traps and cameras to estates for the purpose of WFPC, which showed that we typically loaned equipment to only a small number of estates (Table 2). Those provided with cameras were given wildcat identification guidance and could contact project staff for help in identifying cats if needed. In addition, staff with many more of the estates were loaned cameras for our winter surveys, which are not included in Table 2. Only in Strathavon and Strathspey did we not lend any cameras and traps to staff for the proposes of land management.

Table 2. Number of estates to which we were lending equipment (cameras or traps). Dashes indicate no Project officer presence to handle euquipment loads.

Period	Angus Glens	Morvern	Strathavon	Strathbogie	Strathpeffer	Strathspey
Mar-May 2016	1	-	0	1	3	0
Jun-Aug 2016	0	-	0	1	3	0
Sep-Dec 2016	0	-	0	2	2	0
Jan-Mar 2017	0	0	0	1	0	0
Apr-Jun 2017	-	0	-	1	0	-
Apr-Sep 2018	0	3	-	2	0	0

 

2.3.5  SRDP and uptake of WFPC protocol

The WFPC option under the upland, peatland, moorland and heath category under the Scottish Rural Development Programme offered £140 per trap per year, with up to 20 cage traps and 20 camera traps per contract. Applicants needed to submit a predator control plan and, if successful, keep records of locations, dates and captures of wildcats. It was intended that estates apply for the option as part of a wider set of funding options available under the upland, peatland, moorland and heath theme. Only one estate applied for this option and, because they did not consult with the project beforehand, their application was unsuccessful.

To evaluate why there was no successful uptake of the option, we conducted an online questionnaire survey of landowners in late 2019. The survey was promoted through land management partners and we received 15 responses. Of these, 11 (73%) provided post codes that were within or adjacent to one of the six initial PAs and nine (60%) had land within one of the five PAs active at the time of the survey. Overall, 78% of estates with land within a PA were aware of the project. The main reason given for not applying for the SRDP option was lack of awareness (Table 3). Two other main reasons were that they already conduct WFPC (both respondents who ticked this were also unaware of the SRDP option) or that the contract requirements were too onerous, though one respondent also thought the application process was too difficult and the payment too low. All seven who answered stated they would reconsider applying in the future if the option was revised.

Table 3. Responses to the question "If you did not apply, what are/were the barriers to you applying for this funding?". From eight respondents with more than one reason ticked by some.

Reason	%	N
I was not aware of the funding option	63%	5
Wildcat Friendly Predator Control is already undertaken on my property	25%	2
My property is not within a priority area	13%	1
I did not know/ think that the wildcat needed protection	0%	0
The application process is too difficult	13%	1*
The payments are too low	13%	1*
The contract requirements are too onerous	25%	2*
I cannot use the option on the land type where it is required	0%	0

* One respondent ticked all three of these reasons

Our own informal review of the SRDP option in collaboration with NatureScot highlighted that there could be a mismatch between where the option can be used and where it would be most effective: the trapping should be conducted on a holding eligible moorland, but in winter when trapping is most successful, wildcats are much more likely to be resident to forests and other cover habitats. This was not identified by any of the survey participants as an issue, however. It is possible that the reason for this is because it is not obvious that this restriction is in place (it arises because the WPFC option sits within the upland, peatland, moorland and heath category).

Nevertheless, it is apparent from the lack of awareness of the option evidenced in the survey that we would have needed to invest many more resources into promoting the option to landowners, land managers and land agents. For example, the Saving Scotland’s Red Squirrels project achieved higher levels of take up of the grey squirrel control SRDP option, with 197 landowners receiving funding up to 2013 (Bryce and Tonkins, 2019). This was achieved at least in part by investing staff time in promoting the option and dedicating staff resources to leading applicants through the application process (J. Bryce, pers. comm). In order to achieve similar successes, SWA would have needed to reduce staff activities on other areas such as TNVR and monitoring.

2.3.6  Further trialling of the WFPC protocol

By 2018 engagement with WFPC remained low. We established a land management subgroup consisting of project staff and partners from land management organisations (BASC; CNPA; FLS; Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust (GWCT); John Muir Trust (JMT); SACS; SGA; SLE). One task agreed with the subgroup was to involve gamekeepers in a trial of the WFPC method to inform its future development and encourage uptake of the protocol. Seven gamekeepers in the Angus Glens were involved and the trial took place over the summer. Feedback indicated that some gamekeepers may not be confident enough to identify wildcats in traps and future work could include developing a wildcat identification training video.

2.4  Overall assessment of the wildcat-friendly predator control work stream

We established a good relationship with most estates within our PAs and raised the profile of the wildcat in relation to game management through events and publications. The only negative feedback from estates we experienced was around the provision of feedback on our surveys results after each winter. Feedback could be delayed due to the volume of data and further curtailed following staffing changes. Employing a full-time data officer to assist in the collation of survey data may have helped as this was a significant task (see the Monitoring report). We achieved legacy through the distribution of robust wildcat ID cards, ensuring the protocol was available on the Moorland Management Best Practice webpage and from the nascent online training tool for land managers. We achieved less success in encouraging uptake of the wildcat SRDP funding option and increasing the use of the WFPC protocol generally. In order to improve on this, we needed to invest more staff resources away from the surveys and TNVR activities into promoting land management protocols through training, SRDP funding and promoting ambassador estates. Establishing the land management sub-group in the first year of the project would have assisted in this, for example through helping the project staff build relationships and assisting in the delivery of training days. However, having estates in the Angus Glens trial using the protocol is a positive first step and future work will need to concentrate on increasing the uptake of the protocol through encouragement and/or funding support.

2.4.1  Future improvements to the game management with wildcats

• Predator control around pheasant shoots (e.g. around rearing pens) presents a risk to wildcats not identified previously. For example, a significant proportion of queries from gamekeepers after they had trapped possible wildcats in cage traps were around pheasant pens.
• The Wildlife Estates Scotland (WES) accreditation scheme was on a hiatus during the project, but has since been relaunched. Incorporating the WFPC and habitat management for wildcats (e.g. the latter as part of a woodland management plan, see Promote wildcat-friendly forestry practice) into the scheme should be explored.
• Many estates have tenanted land and the SWA messages would benefit from being promoted by the estates to their tenants.
• On occasion, the project’s activities could appear to be in conflict with other conservation activities. For example, releasing neutered cats may superficially appear to contradict some of the aims of the ‘working for waders’ project (though in reality, TNVR is a tool to reduce feral and hybrid cat populations and so does not contradict predator reduction aims). Nevertheless, the difficult issue of cat management needs to be addressed across conservation projects to ensure a cohesive approach is taken.

3. Promote wildcat-friendly forestry practice

3.1  Background

Forest habitats are important for wildcats in Scotland and across their European range.  Survey work before and during the SWA project found that a large proportion of the remnant population of potential wildcats was associated with commercial plantations and other woodlands.  Publicly owned forests, managed by Forestry and Land Scotland, were important in this regard. This is probably because these sites have served as predator control-free havens for wildcats for decades and offer contiguous areas of cover in increasingly fragmented landscapes.

As part of the SWCAP land management actions, Scottish Forestry (SF, formerly Forestry Commission Scotland) and FLS (formerly Forest Enterprise Scotland) committed to actions under Project 2.3: Promote wildcat-friendly forestry practice. The impact of forest management on wildcats is not fully understood, so improving our understanding is a key aspect of the work undertaken by FLS. 

SF undertook to revise and promote their existing guidance note on forestry operations and wildcats. This note has limited scientific or management experience underpinning it, and was based on best available knowledge at the time of publication. Given that the note was published in 2009, and that knowledge of wildcats in Scottish forests has increased significantly thanks to the SWA project and other research, a revision of the note is overdue.

FLS undertook to carry out trials of a limited range of habitat management measures on the national forest estate. However, given that GPS tracking information indicates that potential wildcats spend significant amounts of time in managed forests, it was decided that the first and most valuable action would be to understand the relative importance of different parts of a commercial plantation on the availability of potential wildcat prey. Therefore, surveys of rodent prey were carried out in Clashindarroch Forest in the Strathbogie PA. The long-term aim was to gather knowledge on food (rodent) availability within the forest, relate this to observed habitat use by wildcats, and use all of the information to influence forest design for the benefit of wildcats.

The creation and monitoring of artificial dens was another key action. It was hypothesised that the provision of artificial dens had the potential to enhance wildcat conservation within productive forests. Wildcats are a European Protected Species and are protected under The Conservation (Natural Habitat, &c) Regulations, 1994, and as such are afforded strict legal protection.  It is an offence to disturb an animal while it is occupying a structure or place used for shelter or protection; to disturb an animal while it is rearing or otherwise caring for its young; or to obstruct access to a breeding site or resting place, or otherwise deny an animal use of a breeding site or resting place.

Given this protection, the forestry sector is trying to develop methods to reconcile wildcats with forest management activities, which have the potential to contravene the legislation, albeit unintentionally. The key problem is that breeding sites and resting places (henceforth called ‘dens’) are difficult to locate. Data from WildCRU’s GPS tracking of wild-living cats and from other GPS studies on wildcats have shown that wildcats use several den sites throughout their home ranges (see the Ecology report). If wildcats were to use artificial dens, it would be possible to create such features at suitable locations within forests, and subsequently plan forest management activities to avoid these known locations.  This would reduce the likelihood of contravening legislation protecting wildcats.

In Scotland gamekeepers used to build artificial dens in drystane (dry stone) dykes on grouse moors, for the purpose of attracting and then trapping predatory mammals. These artificial dens regularly attracted wildcats (K. Peters, pers comm.). Furthermore, there is a view that, given the increase in badger (Meles meles) and fox (Vulpes vulpes) populations, den sites may be limiting for wildcats (R. Dennis, pers comm.).  For these legal and anecdotal reasons, FLS undertook to create and monitor a number of artificial dens.

 

Improving pre-operational surveys and mitigation measures was an objective of the SWCAP. Although the evidence and research that is available strongly suggests that wildcats and timber production are largely compatible, there remains an unquantified risk of direct harm to wildcats and the legally protected structures they use. Based on the spatial and temporal scales of use of plantations by wildcats, and the dispersed and limited annual extent of timber-harvesting operations, the chances of direct harm to wildcats is likely to be low. However, a risk exists and FLS, and the forestry sector more generally, are keen to reduce the risk to an absolute minimum. To this end, FLS staff managing Clashindarroch worked with SWA field staff and biologists, plus the WildCRU biologist, who was actively tracking wildcats, to improve pre-operational surveys and associated mitigation.

During the SWA project, FLS commissioned additional survey work close to the Angus Glens PA, based on recommendations from local wildcat enthusiasts, and volunteers surveyed various Aberdeenshire forests (see the Monitoring and Surveys report). Further survey work will be carried out wherever wildcat sightings are reported.

3.2  Agreed actions

Actions and lead partners identified to deliver project 2.1, ‘Promote wildcat-friendly predator control protocols in PAs’ can be seen in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Land management projects and tasks relating to forest management identified within the Scottish Wildcat Action Plan.

Actions	Action Plan  Numbering	Action Leads (as of 04/2017)
ACTION IN PRIORITY AREAS	2	-
Promote wildcat-friendly forestry practice.	2.3	-
Revise and promote SF guidance on forestry operations and wildcats (including habitat management for wildcats).	2.3.1	SF
Carry out trials of a limited range of habitat management measures on the National Forest Estate, e.g. assess the benefits of extended fallow periods on restock sites, creation of brash piles and artificial den sites.	2.3.2	FLS

 

3.3  Delivery of actions

3.3.1  Action 2.3.1: Revise and promote Scottish Forestry guidance on forestry operations and wildcats

FCS Guidance Note 35d (Forest operations and wildcats in Scotland) was assessed and the content compared against the recent published literature and continuing wildcat research.  During this process an immediate need for a guidance note for front-line staff working on tree-felling operations was identified.

3.3.2  Actions 2.3.2: Carry out trials of a limited range of habitat management measures on the national forest estate

3.3.2.1  Rodent prey surveys

Information on what determines the presence of the wildcat in Scotland is limited, but prey availability is likely to be an important aspect (Corbett 1979; Monterroso, Brito, Ferreras and Alves, 2009). The wildcat’s primary prey is small mammals, especially where rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) is less abundant (Hewson 1983). Previous and continuing research shows that wildcats tend to use open areas and clear fells in plantations, because these are grassier and support small mammal prey (Campbell 2015; Scottish Wildcat Action, 2017; K Kilshaw pers comm.). Short-tailed field vole (Microtus agrestis; henceforth called field vole) is one of the species found in these clear fells (definition according to Sibbald et al., 2006: ungrazed grassland and young forestry plantation), making it a potential prey species for the wildcat.  Less is known about the habitat use of two other rodent prey species in commercial plantations in Scotland – the bank vole (Myodes glareolus), and the wood mouse (Apodemus sylvaticus). To improve and potentially expand suitable habitat for wildcat within plantations in SWCAP PAs, it is important to gain more specific knowledge about rodents in these areas.

Therefore, the aims of this work were to determine the distribution and relative abundance of three species of rodents in four different habitat types within Clashindarroch forest in the SWCAP Strathbogie PA (Figure 4). The three species of rodent were the field vole, the bank vole and the wood mouse. The four habitat types were unfelled stands of timber, restocked (i.e. replanted) areas, clear fells and permanent open areas. Long-standing commercial plantations like Clashindarroch have large areas of all four of these habitat types. 

Vole sign Index method for field vole

The method used for estimating field vole population density is based on the method described in Lambin et al., (2000) and is referred to as the Vole Sign Index (VSI) method. Field voles leave signs in the field in the form of grass clippings, runways and droppings. Sampling areas were in restocks and clear fells, where graminaceous vegetation was growing or well developed. In each sampling area, 25 quadrats were searched for field signs. The quadrats were 25x25cm wooden frames, which were thrown in the direction of suitable vole habitat and searches for signs were carried out where they landed; a constant effort of around 30 seconds was used for each quadrat. When the frame landed on bare ground or wood, it was thrown again. The position of each quadrat was determined by walking 20 paces from the previous quadrat, following the most suitable habitat. Findings of field signs were categorised as fresh droppings, old droppings, fresh grass clippings, old grass clippings and runways. The quantity of field vole signs were then converted to field vole population densities using the VSI.

Live trapping for bank vole, field vole and wood mouse

To obtain an estimate of the bank vole populations, a live-trapping method was used. This method was based on the small quadrat method described by Millymãki et al. (1971). Field signs searches are not suitable for estimating bank vole population density, because this species does not leave adequate signs (Xavier Lambin pers comm.). The small-quadrat method is used for its comparability with studies conducted in Fennoscandia, where it is a regularly used method. This method is also preferable to live-trapping, because each quadrat can be placed on suitable habitat, and is, therefore, more reliable. Traps were set in 15x15m quadrats containing 12 traps. Three Ugglan Special multiple-capture traps (manufacturer: Grahnab, Marieholme, Sweden) were set on each corner of the quadrat. Quadrats were located in seven unfelled stands of timber (Sitka spruce), seven restocked (i.e. replanted) areas, and seven clear fells.

A trapping period consisted of three pre-baiting days, one day for setting the traps and three capture nights. Traps were pre-baited with oats, carrots and peanut-butter (Lambin and Baucha, 1989). On capture days the traps were checked daily (once per 24 hours). To prevent by-catch and deaths of shrews, every trap was equipped with a 12mm hole. The influence of these shrew exits was studied by Eccard and Klemme (2013): the number of shrews caught in their experiment went down from 31 to 0, while the number of caught bank voles was not affected.

Two vole monitoring projects ran concurrently and were managed by FLS: 

Project 1

This project employed the VSI method and sampled permanent open habitats within Clashindarroch.  Surveys were carried out in spring and autumn 2018, and spring and autumn 2019. The intention is to continue to carry out these twice-yearly surveys on an ongoing basis, in order to quantify the magnitude of fluctuations in the population.

Project 2

This project used live trapping to sample bank voles, field voles and wood mice in unfelled stands of timber, restocked (i.e. replanted) areas and clear fells. The aim was to determine the distribution and relative abundance of three species of rodents in the three different habitat types. Project 2 was carried out in 2018.

3.3.2.2  Creation and monitoring of artificial dens

Several kinds of artificial dens were created, using stones and boulders, wooden boxes, logs, brash (branches left after felling), and mixtures of these materials. The brash dens and box-log-brash dens were constructed as part of pre-programmed felling operations, because this would be the standard method of construction if the artificial dens were found to be of value for wildcats. The prefabricated box dens were ordered from and constructed by Wood Recyclability Ltd., a local social enterprise company. They were deployed in various places in Clashindarroch, both on and off the ground. Some dens in Glen Isla were constructed by hand by volunteers. Some examples of the various artificial dens are shown in Figure 5-Figure 8 below. 

 

Camera traps were deployed to detect and monitor wildcat usage of a sample of 17 of the artificial dens: two of the wooden boxes in Clashindarroch (Figure 6), and 15 of the hand-constructed artificial dens in Glen Isla (Figure 8).

3.3.2.3  Improving pre-operational surveys and mitigation measures

FLS Environment staff worked with SWA field staff and wildcat biologists to develop and improve pre-operational surveys for wildcats, and to enhance mitigation measures to lessen the potential impact of forest operations on wildcats. The focus of this work was in Clashindarroch Forest, where SWA field staff and biologists spent time in the field with FLS Environment Rangers and other staff, training them on wildcat detection, ecology and conservation.   

Discussions were held between SWA staff and FLS Environment, Planning and Operations staff about what additional wildcat conservation measures were compatible with timber-harvesting programmes, and what new mitigation could be enacted on a trial basis. SWA camera-trapping and GPS collar data were shared with FLS staff to inform operational decision-making.

3.3.2.4  Additional wildcat surveys on FLS land

During 2018, camera trap-based surveys for wildcats were conducted on additional FLS sites. One set of surveys was conducted by an experienced contractor in Strathardle, approximately 10km west of the Angus Glens PA (Ross, A. 2018), during winter and spring 2018. Another set of surveys were conducted by experienced students on a scholarship funded by the Spanish Government, deploying camera traps in areas in Aberdeenshire (Villar and González, 2019). Camera-trap locations were at least 300m apart, spread throughout the forest blocks.  At each location two camera traps were deployed in order to improve detection. Results of both these surveys are summarised in the Monitoring and Surveys report.

3.4  Results

SWCAP Project 2.3: Promote wildcat-friendly forestry practice 

3.4.1  Action 2.3.1: Revise and promote Scottish Forestry guidance on forestry operations and wildcats         

The revision of FCS Guidance Note 35d (Forest operations and wildcats in Scotland) was deferred pending the results of the WildCRU GPS-tracking study of wildcats in forest habitats and other work. 

As an additional and interim measure, SWA and FLS staff produced a leaflet for forestry contractors working in forests containing wildcats (Figure 9). This has been distributed to all forestry contractors and all relevant FLS operational staff – over 50 people in total.  In addition, SWA staff and FLS Environment staff spoke face-to-face and on-site with all FLS staff and contractors working in the Strathbogie and the Angus Glens PAs. 

    

3.4.1.1  Rodent prey surveys                 

Project 1

Table 5. Field vole population densities (voles per hectare) derived from Vole Sign Index.

Area	Spring 2018	Autumn 2018	Spring 2019	Autumn 2019
1	75.46	101.66	36.16	62.36
2	49.26	36.16	23.06	9.96
3	62.36	36.16	9.96	9.96
4	36.16	49.26	36.16	23.06
5	36.16	88.56	49.26	62.36
6	36.16	49.26	75.46	101.66
7	36.16	23.06	36.16	23.06
8	49.26	9.96	9.96	9.96
9	88.56	49.26	23.06	23.06
10	62.36	62.36	36.16	75.46
11	88.56	49.26	23.06	75.46
12	62.36	36.16	49.26	101.66
13	9.96	62.36	9.96	49.26
14	23.06	9.96	23.06	9.96
15	114.76	23.06	62.36	75.46
16	114.76	75.46	23.06	49.26

 

 

No clear trends or partial cycles were apparent in the field vole population after two years of monitoring. Some of the 16 survey sites appeared to support more field voles than others, though all sites supported 20 voles per hectare in at least one site×season measure. Field vole population densities in these permanent open areas surveyed within Clashindarroch varied from about 10 voles per hectare to almost 115 voles per hectare.  In 54 out of the 64 site×season measures, field vole population densities were in excess of 20 voles per hectare.  In half of the site*season measures, field vole population densities were in excess of 50 voles per hectare.

Based on a weight of 25g, and using the mean population densities for each season, derived from Table 5, the following biomasses of field voles were available to wildcats in open areas in Clashindarroch:

Spring 2018: 1.48 kg ha^-1
Autumn 2018: 1.19 kg^-1
Spring 2019: 0.82 kg^-1
Autumn 2019: 1.19 kg^-1

Project 2

Table 6. Rodent live-capture results from 21 open habitat sites in Clashindarroch

Quadrat	Habitat type	Bank vole	Field vole	Wood mouse	Total
3 in 1 Felled	Felled	1	2	2	5
3 in 1 Felled part 2	Felled	2	10	2	14
3 in 1 Restock	Restock	1	0	0	1
3 in 1 Restock Part 2	Restock	0	0	0	0
Craigie Beg 1	Unfelled	9	0	0	9
Craigie Beg 2	Unfelled	5	0	0	5
Craigiebeg 1 Part 2	Unfelled	1	0	3	4
Craigiebeg 2 Part 2	Unfelled	7	0	4	11
Craigiebeg Carpark	Unfelled	5	0	0	5
Longbank 2 Down	Restock	0	1	0	1
Longbank Down	Restock	0	1	0	1
Picadilly	Unfelled	4	0	0	4
Picadilly 2	Unfelled	1	0	0	1
Pretty	Felled	0	2	0	2
Pretty Part 2	Felled	0	7	1	8
Red Deer	Felled	0	0	2	2
Red Deer Part 2	Felled	0	7	3	10
Upper Burnfell	Felled	1	3	1	5
Upper Longbank	Restock	1	2	1	4
Upper Longbank 2	Restock	0	6	0	6
Spiny Bark	Restock	0	0	0	0
Grand Total		38	41	19	98

 

All three species of rodent were found in all three forest stand types, but in different numbers (Figure 11).  Bank voles were the most common in unfelled stands. Field voles were the most common in felled areas and restocks. Wood mice were found in all three habitats, but were not the most common species in any of the three habitats. 

3.4.1.2  Creation and monitoring of artificial dens

A total of 63 artificial dens were constructed; 30 in the SWCAP Angus Glens PA and 33 in the SWCAP Strathbogie PA (Table 7).  

Table 7. Summary of 63 artificial dens constructed in Angus Glens and Strathbogie PAs by FLS.

Priority area	Site(s)	Den type	Number
Strathbogie	Clashindarroch, Ardonald, Gartly, The Bin	Prefabricated wooden boxes	10
Strathbogie	Clashindarroch	Machine constructed with logs, box and with brash cover	3
Strathbogie	Clashindarroch, Ardonald, Gartly, The Bin	Deadwood piles constructed during forest operations	20
Angus Glens	Glen Isla	Hand-built with stone and pipe, or windblown wood	15
Angus Glens	Glen Isla	Brash piles created during forest operations	9
Angus Glens	Glen Doll	Brash piles created during forest operations	6

 

Up to 25 camera traps at a time, some in pairs, were deployed on 15 artificial dens in Glen Isla (Angus Glens) between November 2018 and October 2019. In total 10,450 camera-trap days were achieved. In Clashindarroch two wooden boxes were monitored with two camera traps for a total of 40 camera-trap*days. An overall total of 10,490 camera-trap days of monitoring was carried out.

No cats of any kind were recorded going into or out of any of the dens. Several cats, including wildcats, were recorded on camera traps close to, or even on top of, a small number of the dens (e.g. Figure 12). A wildcat and kittens were recorded using a roadside timber stack for several days. This timber stack was located close to a few artificial dens (hand-built stone/pipe dens, and brash piles), but these were not used.

 

3.4.1.3  Improving pre-operational surveys and mitigation measures

FLS Environment staff, SWA field staff and wildcat biologists spent over 30 days working together in the field in Clashindarroch, refining pre-operational surveys and exchanging knowledge. FLS staff received continuing training on effective camera-trap deployment and on detecting wildcat field signs, breeding sites and resting places. SWA staff also advised FLS Environment staff on operation-specific mitigation in Clashindarroch. This enhanced the capability of FLS staff to enact effective conservation and mitigation for wildcats via a wildcat data-based risk assessment process. 

Discussions were held between SWA staff and FLS Environment, Planning and Operations staff about what additional wildcat conservation measures were compatible with timber-harvesting programmes and what new mitigation could be enacted on a trial basis. Starting in early 2018, the following measures were enacted on a trial basis in Clashindarroch:

• Camera traps were deployed on harvesting sites at least six months prior to any forest management
• Tagging data from the WildCRU wildcat GPS tracking project were used to inform management
• No clear felling in Clashindarroch between March and June inclusive
• No thinning operations in Clashindarroch between March and June inclusive
• Operations only carried out where no evidence of wildcats was found on a site
• Prior to any operations beginning in Clashindarroch Forest, all operators were briefed on the presence of wildcats and were provided with an FLS/SWA interim guidance note
• All contractors and operators and FLS staff working in Clashindarroch Forest were asked to remain vigilant and to report any sightings of wildcats. Standard operating procedures on the sighting of a wildcat was to stop all work and report it immediately to the FLS Environment team
• If evidence of wildcats was found, operations were deferred
• All potential dens (e.g. rock piles) were protected from damage at all times
• From August 2019 mounding operations were restricted to out-with the breeding period
• FLS staff and contractors record all wildcat sightings and signs

This trial is continuing and similar approaches have been adopted in all FLS forest blocks known to have populations of wildcats.

3.4.1.4  Additional wildcat surveys on FLS land

During the Strathardle survey, one potential wildcat, though it was likely a hybrid, and one feral domestic cat were recorded in Kindrogan, and one unknown cat was recorded at Dalrulzion (Ross, A. 2018). The surveys in the Aberdeenshire blocks (Villar and González, 2019) failed to locate any cats with high pelage scores within FLS forest blocks, though one potential wildcat was detected elsewhere (see the Monitoring and Surveys report). Two hybrids and nine feral or domestic cats were detected across three of the forest blocks. No cats at all were detected in Pitfichie. 

3.5  Overall assessment of forestry management work stream

SWCAP Project 2.3: Promote wildcat-friendly forestry practice

3.5.1  Action 2.3.1: Revise and promote Scottish Forestry guidance on forestry operations and wildcats

The deferral of the revision of FCS Guidance Note 35d (Forest operations and wildcats in Scotland), pending the results of the WildCRU GPS-tagging study of wildcats in forest habitats, is sensible as it will avoid doing an inadequate revision, followed soon after by a second revision. The delay will be well worthwhile, because the WildCRU research is shedding new information, at unprecedented resolution, on wildcat behaviour within plantations and, in combination with other work, will result in a hugely improved guidance note.

The additional and new SWA/FLS leaflet for forestry staff and contractors, and continuing face-to-face dialogue between SWA/FLS staff and forestry workers, have raised awareness significantly among key personnel in the meantime.  It has been apparent that forestry workers are amenable to helping with wildcat conservation and efforts to engage with them will continue.

3.5.1.1  Future work

1. Use the results of the SWA project findings and the WildCRU wildcat GPS-tracking project as a basis to revise FCS Guidance Note 35d (Forest Operations and Wildcats in Scotland) in late 2021 or early 2022.

2. FLS staff and SWA volunteers to continue to liaise and work with forestry personnel to protect wildcats in managed forests.

3.5.2  Action 2.3.2: Carry out trials of a limited range of habitat management measures on the national forest estate

3.5.2.1  Rodent prey surveys

Project 1 showed that field vole population densities in permanent open areas were substantially lower than those in Kielder Forest, which is a comparable site in England. There, densities of 200 to 765 voles per hectare were recorded at the peak of the vole cycle (Lambin et al., 2000; Ergon et al., 2011). It may be that the field vole population in Clashindarroch is currently at the low point of the cycle and will increase in the near future to levels closer to those in Kielder. 

However, despite being lower than Kielder, the field vole population densities in Clashindarroch were comparable to vole population densities reported in broadleaf woodland and hedgerows (Flowerdew et al., 2004) elsewhere in the UK. Very rough calculations indicate that, on average, about 1 kg per hectare of field vole biomass is typically available to wildcats in permanent open areas in Clashindarroch. 

Project 2 showed that rodent prey was present in all three surveyed habitat types (unfelled, restocked and clear fells). However, although bank voles were present in the forest, and are a suitable prey species for wildcats, they occur in habitats that are not suited to wildcat hunting, i.e. unfelled and un-thinned stands, including Sitka spruce. They are known to climb well and spend time several metres up trees eating bark, especially in winter. Therefore, bank voles are probably less available to wildcats than field voles.

The information gathered on rodent prey in Clashindarroch fits well with the data currently being gathered by the WildCRU GPS-tagging study of wildcats in forest habitats.  Whilst in the forest, the tagged wildcats spend most of their time in permanent open areas and in clear fells, where rodent prey is most abundant and most accessible. Managing Clashindarroch for timber production creates a mosaic of open and dense habitats, which appear to provide both foraging and shelter areas for wildcats.

From current knowledge it would appear that timber production and wildcat conservation may be compatible because plantations consist of a mosaic of habitats that are suitable for wildcats. That does not preclude further improvements to forestry management to benefit wildcats.

Future work

1. Annual monitoring of field voles will continue in Clashindarroch.
2. Use data from WildCRU GPS-tracking study of wildcats in forest habitats to model optimisation of forest design for wildcats.

3.5.2.2  Creation and monitoring of artificial dens

Despite a significant monitoring effort in an area known to have wildcats, the data gathered so far from this management trial indicate that the provision of artificial dens is not a worthwhile conservation action for wildcats in commercial forests. FLS will not be advocating this as a conservation measure, or constructing more dens, unless further evidence of their benefit comes to light.

During the monitoring period, a wildcat and her kittens were observed using a stack of timber at the side of a forest road in Glen Isla, which is effectively an artificial den. They did not use nearby artificial dens. Although it is not sensible to draw conclusions from individual events, it has been suggested that wildcats will use timber stacks because they have had no scent of human beings – having been handled only by machines – and that the human scent on the newly-constructed artificial dens may be a deterrent. Therefore, FLS will continue to create brash or log piles during forest operations, and will monitor a small sample of these features, possibly using volunteers, to ascertain if ‘weathering’ and consequent loss of human scent, will make the artificial dens more attractive to wildcats.

Future work

1. Continue to create brash or log piles during forest operations.
2. Continue to monitor a small sample of artificial dens using camera traps.
3. Recruit volunteers to manage the artificial den monitoring.

3.5.2.3  Improving pre-operational surveys and mitigation measures

he new survey and mitigation measures, enacted on a trial basis in Clashindarroch, put significant additional restrictions on timber production and require significant additional staff resources to deliver and manage them effectively. Seasonal restrictions on timber production are problematic, because of the limited capacity of contractors; the disruption it causes to the flow of timber to sawmills; and the increase in planning and management costs. Therefore, these restrictions reduce income to the public purse from timber sales on the national forest estate. The restriction on working in the spring and summer also has potentially negative implications for soil and water protection, because a greater proportion of work is carried out during wet and wintry weather.

FLS approaches to pre-operational surveys and mitigation will be revised according to the results of the continuing WildCRU GPS-tagging project. Furthermore, an overall assessment and comparison of the benefits to wildcats and the issues created for the local timber industry will need to be carried out by FLS, in order to judge if such measures are worth implementing more widely. This is particularly necessary given the apparently low genetic ‘quality’ of wildcats sampled thus far on the national forest estate.

Future work

1. Carry out a comparative assessment of the benefits and disadvantages of seasonal restrictions on timber production.
2. Continue to support the SWA volunteers and WildCRU wildcat GPS-tracking project to increase our knowledge of wildcat habitat use in plantations.

3.5.3  Additional wildcat survey work on FLS land

The survey results in Strathardle and Aberdeenshire were disappointing with only a very few hybrids detected. The contractor for Strathardle had previously surveyed the FLS forest blocks in Strathardle in 2016 and 2017 with no success. The sightings of only one hybrid in the Strathardle blocks and two hybrids in the Aberdeenshire blocks are insufficient evidence for FLS to prioritise conservation action for wildcats in these blocks. However, the results of these surveys, and other surveys carried out before and during the SWCAP project, allow FLS to direct resources to the best places for wildcats. FLS will commit resources to additional wildcat survey work wherever reliable records of wildcats are recorded. 

Future work

Further survey work will be commissioned as and when reliable wildcat sightings on the national forest estate are reported.

4. Promote wildcat-friendly management of estates, farms and crofts

4.1  Agreed actions

Actions and lead partners identified to deliver project 2.1, ‘Promote wildcat-friendly predator control protocols in priority areas’ can be seen in Table 8 below.

Table 8. Land management projects and tasks relating to agriculture identified within the Scottish Wildcat Action Plan. Action leads were initially allocated to National Farmers Union Scotland (NFUS) but later taken on by SWA.

Actions	Action Plan  Numbering	Action Leads
ACTION IN PRIORITY AREAS	2	-
Promote wildcat-friendly management on estates, farms and crofts.	2.2	-
Avoid creating artificial food sources for feral cats. Including: – proper storage of foodstuffs – advice on mice and rat control and avoiding secondary poisoning.	2.2.1	NFUS
Highlight the risks of toxoplasmosis to livestock from feral cats.	2.2.2	NFUS
Produce guidance on land management that will benefit wildcats.	2.2.3	NFUS

 

4.2  Delivery of actions

4.2.1  Assessing farmer and crofter attitudes

Through a student placement, Martha Gavan from the University of Aberdeen, we conducted a questionnaire survey of 147 farmers and crofters relating to their management of cats and farm pests. The questionnaire (Annex 1) was posted to 927 crofters and we received 102 responses. In addition, 13 responses were gained from face-to-face interviews and 32 responses through an online version of the survey. The survey is therefore biased towards crofters, with 35% from the northern Highlands (north of Lairg) and 28% from the west Highlands (Skye, Lochaber and west Ross-shire). 32% had sheep, 15% cattle, 12% poultry and 26% some form of non-livestock farming (permanent crops, general cropping, horticulture and cereal production). 48% of the respondents were entirely livestock based, versus 26% arable and 26% mixed. Over a third (38%) reported having cats living on their farm or croft, with half of these being pet cats. Note that not all farms with pet cats regard their pets as a means of rodent pest control and so this figure is different from those provided below. See the Responsible Cat Ownership report for further details on the make-up and management of the cats on the crofts and farms involved in this survey.

4.2.1.1  Feed or grain storage and pest control

Half of the crofts and farms stored hay, 56% stored other feed and 24% stored grain. For grain storage, most were stored in sealed containers (69%) but a significant proportion were stored in bags (11%) or the respondent just stated they were stored in sheds or barns (20%). Similarly, most feed (75%) was stored in sealed containers, but 14% only stated it was stored in sheds or barns. The remainder was silage. Over a third (36%) stated they had problems with rodents, with 20% stating they use rodenticides as a control method. This is lower than when compared to the results from the 2014 Scottish Government-funded survey that found 87% of the 273 arable holdings surveyed used some form of pesticide. The difference may arise from the large number of crofts or of livestock-based crofts and farms in this survey. Of those that used rodenticides and knew the type used, brands such as Neosorexa and Roban Rat and Mouse Killer, containing second generation rodenticides, were the most common (Figure 13). These are known to bring higher risks of secondary poisoning. Most respondents (60%) used rodenticides only in areas non-target species could not access, 30% removed carcases and 10% stated they did not take any measures. Note that deploying the rodenticide in areas non-target species cannot access will not reduce the risk of secondary poisoning from a predator consuming a rodent that has ingested the chemical. The majority of respondents (87%) applied rodenticide themselves, with only 3% solely using professional pest controllers.

Many respondents also used non-chemical methods for rodent pest control, with lethal traps being the single most commonly used method (Figure 14), followed by pet cats. Grouped together with farm cats, however, cats are the main non-chemical method of rodent control applied.

Overall, there is the potential for risk to wildcats from a) the use of rodenticides and b) the keeping of unneutered cats to control rodent pests. Encouraging further use of rodent-proof grain and feed storage and the neutering of cats on farms may reduce these risks.

4.2.1.2  Issues with predators

Neither wildcats nor cats generally were considered problematic predators by any of the respondents, except one respondent who stated cats were a problem (Figure 15). The project staff have received reports through other sources of cats (wildcats or hybrids) preying on poultry, so this response is surprising, but perhaps reflects that predation from cats on livestock such as poultry is low compared with the threat from other predators.  

The most commonly reported problematic species were foxes (n=74) and crows (n=63). By far the most frequent complaint against them was the killing or maiming of livestock, primarily lambs or vulnerable sheep (such as toppled sheep or ewes in labour). Pine martens were also commonly selected as a problem species (n=54) primarily due to the killing of poultry and other ground-nesting birds. A minority of respondents used potentially indiscriminate methods such as lamping (9%) or snaring (2%) as predator control methods, with over half (54%) not conducting predator control. Given these figures, accidental killing of wildcats during predator control by farmers and crofters may be a rare occurrence. However, since lamping and snaring does occur, promoting the WFPC protocol among farmers and crofters in wildcat PAs should be considered.

4.2.2  Assessing risks from secondary poisoning

Through an MSc project conducted by Lydia Peters, we assessed the levels of rodenticide in the livers of 49 wild-living cats collected on roads. 61% showed rodenticide residues, nearly half of which presented residues above the toxic level recognised for other mammals and birds. The most prevalent rodenticides detected were second generation rodenticides. See the Disease Surveillance report for further details on this. To assess the pattern of risk of exposure in more detail, the relationship between exposure levels, human population density and the density of farmyards was examined. This analysis was conducted at the end of the project and was therefore too late to inform communications strategies. See Annex 2 for details of this analysis.

Rodenticide concentrations in the cats’ livers showed a significant modal relationship with human population density, with zero or very low concentrations at the lowest and the highest population densities, and higher concentrations in some cats at moderate population densities (Figure 16). The relationship between exposure and number of farmyards was not significant, though cats with zero or very low exposure from areas of low population density also had no farmyards within a 6km2 area around where they were collected.

Exposure will depend on the techniques used in applying and managing rodenticides and the behaviour of the cats (e.g. how likely they are to hunt around buildings). The number of farms alone does not explain the pattern of exposure found in this study, except where lack of farms coincides with low human population densities. The use of rodenticides other than around farm buildings, and variation in how much and how responsibly they are used, likely plays a role. Therefore, safe use of rodenticides should be promoted with other users of these chemicals, such as households and other businesses, as well as with farmers and crofters.

4.2.3  Promoting best practice 

Project staff regularly spoke with farmers and crofters in the PAs, promoting key messages as they did so. The project further promotes these key messages through attendance at local events and regional agricultural shows such as the Black Isle and Turriff shows. Farm cat neutering was also promoted through our #generationwildcat campaign. A collaboration with Athole Design & Publishing Ltd led to the partnership writing a column in their Farming Scotland magazine over 2019-2020. This took the form of an opening article introducing the project and the key issues around wildcat conservation and agriculture, followed by four articles that drew on aspects of wildcat ecology and the research the partnership were conducting to promote the key messages. Key messages promoted through the column were around threats from farm cats, from rodenticide and from predator control, but we also highlighted positive actions too:

• Wildcats can visit farms. Having cats on farms neutered and vaccinated helps protect wildcats.
• Reducing cats on farms also reduces the problems of toxoplasmosis during lambing.
• SWA can help with cat neutering in Priority Areas.
• Research shows that rodenticide presents a risk to wildcats.
• Reduce use of second generation rodenticides and follow the guidance issued by the Campaign for Responsible Rodenticide Use (CRRU)
• Reduce rodent pests through other methods such as keeping feed in sealed storage.
• Predator control using spotlights or thermal scopes presents a risk to wildcats so follow the WFPC.
• Wildcats use agricultural land, especially resting in gorse scrub and buildings, and they hunt around rabbit warrens.
• Retaining scrub (especially on south-facing slopes) and ensuring a diverse connected agricultural landscape (e.g. with hedgerows, woodland patches and natural field margins) will benefit wildcats.

4.3  Overall assessments of the agriculture work stream

Ensuring NFUS was represented on the SWCAP Steering Group may have helped progress the SWCAP Actions under the Agriculture work stream. Nevertheless, progress was made on all actions. The project found new evidence of threats to wildcats from rodenticides, though other industries and private use of these chemicals will be at least as important a contributor as the agriculture sector. The project promoted a range of key messages around agriculture both in person, at events and in the press. Further buy-in is required from industry representatives, however. Future steps should aim to encourage greater participation by these representatives and to formalise new guidance from the research conducted through the project.

5.  Other activities

5.1  Planning and construction

Project staff provided advice and wildcat records to ecological consultants involved in construction projects over the course of the project. The project further advised NatureScot as it considered responses to planning applications. Wildcats are a European Protected Species and are protected under The Conservation (Natural Habitat, &c) Regulations, 1994. Consultations around some planning applications can be emotive and the presence of wildcats can be seen as a lever through which applications can be refused. For SWA, protecting wildcats is always the priority. Nevertheless, the project needed to maintain an evidence-based approach to these issues while acknowledging the precautionary principle where evidence is lacking. Furthermore, the project is not a competent authority for reviewing planning applications, that role being held by NatureScot. Therefore, while advice and records on wildcats were given during planning, decisions on formal objections to planning applications could only be taken by NatureScot, following advice from the project. The most useful role the project could play around planning applications was the provision of clear advice on best practice for conducting wildcat surveys, possible mitigation methods and sharing knowledge of wildcat presence.

An important future step will be to use the information gained from the camera surveys, GPS-tracking and other research to update the guidance available to planners and consultant ecologists through the nature.scot website.

5.2  Sharing Good Practice

The project held a fully booked Sharing Good Practice event aimed at consultant ecologists, developers, foresters and gamekeepers. Presentations by relevant experts included overviews of the legal protection afforded to wildcats; the taxonomy and ecology of the wildcat; survey methods; and information sources for consultant ecologists. These were followed by workshops. Few gamekeepers attended and therefore the discussion focused on ecological surveys, developments and forestry. Presentations and summaries of the workshops can be found on the website. A separate event specifically targeting land-managers was proposed, led by GWCT, but not held before the project finished.   

6.  References

Bryce, J. & Tonkins, M. 2019. Containment of invasive grey squirrels in Scotland: meeting the challenge. In: Veitch, C.R., Clout, M.N., Martin, A.R., Russell J.C. & West C.J. (eds) Island invasives: scaling up to meet the challenge. Occasional Paper SSC no. 62. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. pp. 180-186.

References

Campbell, RD. 2015. Spatial ecology of the Scottish wildcat. Final report. Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, University of Oxford. 105 pages.

Peters, L. 2019. Assessing the levels of rodenticide exposure in the endangered Scottish wildcat (Felis silvestris). MSc dissertation, Royal Veterinary College, University of London. 26 pages.

For further information on this report please contact:
Roo Campbell, NatureScot, Great Glen House, Leachkin Road, Inverness, IV3 8NW.
Telephone: 01463 725130
Email: r[email protected]

ISBN: 978-1-78391-981-9 

This publication is part of a series of specialist reports on the work of the Scottish Wildcat Action (SWA) project that ran from 2015-2020. The work was led and steered by a partnership of organisations: Cairngorms National Park Authority, Forestry and Land Scotland, National Museums Scotland, Scottish Land & Estates, NatureScot, Scottish Wildlife Trust, The National Trust for Scotland, The Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The Royal Zoological Society of Scotland, The Scottish Gamekeepers Association, The Scottish Government, Wildlife Conservation Research Unit (WildCRU).

The many other partners and funders are listed in the Summary Report.

For more information, including access to the other reports, contact Martin Gaywood at NatureScot. 

This report, or any part of it, should not be reproduced without the permission of NatureScot or the relevant authors. This permission will not be withheld unreasonably. The views expressed by the author(s) of this report should not be taken as the views and policies of NatureScot. © NatureScot 2023.

Document downloads