The recent poisoning of a golden eagle in Peebles-shire served as a reminder of how baleful the impact of wildlife crime can be on Scotland's natural heritage. This was not an isolated incident. Last year, a record number of birds of prey were illegally poisoned. In all, there were 39 cases of pesticide abuse resulting in the death of eagles, red kites, hawks, falcons, owls, buzzards and ravens. Recently, police warned that this year's figure could be even higher.

According to the animal welfare lobby, persecution of birds of prey is most intense on land managed as grouse moor, the aim being to enable grouse to breed in large numbers to provide game for the shooting season. Gamekeepers maintain that, without sporting estates managing wildlife, there would be fewer predatory birds as there would be a diminished food source. The debate about blame intensifies each time the persecution of a bird of prey makes headlines. The figures show, unfortunately, that this is occurring on the news agenda with greater frequency.

Such incidents yesterday caused Mike Russell, Scottish Environment Minister, to outline measures to crack down on wildlife crime. That a fresh look at sanctions is required is demonstrated by the upsurge in raptor persecution. If the law were effective, the trend would have been reversed, not exacerbated. The previous Scottish Executive said legislation to tackle wildlife crime would act as a deterrent but the small fines handed out recently to gamekeepers for possession of illegal poisons have not, unsurprisingly, had the desired effect. It is time to punish those responsible in a way that will deter. It is not just the natural heritage that suffers with each poisoning. Biodiversity is also harmed. Scotland's reputation as a country committed to protecting the environment in its many shades is undermined.

Mr Russell suggests that gamekeepers and other countryside workers could lose their firearms licences if convicted of wildlife crime, while state subsidies could be withdrawn from landowners also found culpable by the courts. There is a case for the introduction of both punishments since, having been imposed, they could deny gamekeepers who had broken the law their livelihood and remove a valuable source of income from estates. The problem, which Mr Russell recognises, is that gamekeepers and land workers who commit wildlife crime are often following instructions and the person ultimately responsible can escape punishment. This could be tackled by licensing grouse moors and shooting estates. The licence could be revoked depending on the severity and frequency of acts of wildlife crime. It would be a severe sanction but, given the worsening trend in raptor persecution, it is perhaps warranted.