Mark ♦
October 29, 2016 ♦
Leave Your Comment
Here is the summary of another very powerful piece of
written evidence:
- The shooting industry and its representatives should be removed from
all positions of power where wildlife crime law enforcement policy are
discussed or decided upon.
- Driven grouse moors should be rewilded. This at a stroke, would
remove the many very serious problems of driven grouse moors and provide
real, significant, tangible benefits for the whole of society.
- Driven grouse moor management normally involves very high levels of
wildlife crime as well as a range of very serious conservation issues.
- The illegal persecution of birds of prey in the UK has a very
serious detrimental effect, especially on hen harrier and golden eagle
populations.
- Raptor persecution should be treated as organised crime.
- Detection of wildlife crime on grouse shooting estates is currently
ineffective. Enforcement need to be far greater, with clear and strong
backing from political leadership. A dedicated Wildlife Crime
Enforcement team should be set up comprising perhaps 10 officers for
Scotland. Employers and managers must be targeted for prosecution, not
simply those actually undertaking the illegal killings
- Penalties for raptor killings should reflect the fact that these
crimes are of a commercial nature. Custodial sentences should be made
routine for employers, managers and employees. Financial penalties
should be linked to the value of the business.
- The industry has consistently shown no will to reform itself, despite much help to that end for many years.
- There is practically no accountably to ensure that those managing
driven grouse shooting estates adhere to lawful and decent environmental
practise.
- It is clear that driven grouse shooting should be banned. However,
in the absence of such a ban, it is essential that vicarious liability
and shoot registration are urgently required.
- Society is failing to get any benefit from the huge subsidies given
to driven grouse shooting estates, indeed these monies are funding very
serious environmental degradation.
And here are some quotes from it too:
- It is essential to understand that raptor persecution is committed
on remote land that is normally free from potential witnesses and by
individuals with an intimate knowledge of the land, often operating at
night with high tech, essentially military, equipment. The risk to them
of detection is extremely low. Around 100 confirmed incidents of
raptor persecution are recorded each year. It is not known what
percentage of actual incidents this number accounts for, but I believe
it will certainly be far, far less than 1%. The RSPB has received
multiple reports of in excess of 100 raptors being killed on individual
shooting estates in one year. Apart from the extremely low detection
rate, of the confirmed incidents, the subsequent successful prosecution
rate is less than 5%. As such, the chances of an individual gamekeeper
killing a raptor and actually being prosecuted for it are extremely
low. For every successful gamekeeper prosecution, I estimate that there
will have been, very roughly, far, far more than 2000 other offences.
Having been convicted, it is likely that the employer will pay any fine,
meaning that there is effectively no consequence for a gamekeeper
illegally killing raptors or other legally protected wildlife. [Only
one gamekeeper ever, has received a custodial sentence for raptor
killing in Scotland. This is probably the one and only time ever, that a
significant deterrent was handed down, and the only occasion where
managers or owners were unable to protect their employees from the
law.] When gamekeepers are prosecuted in court, they are normally
unusually well represented in court, often by QC’s, even for minor
offences, by specialist defence firms. Having been convicted of
wildlife crimes, gamekeepers invariably retain their employment. This
arrangement allows managers and employers to remain very distant from
the criminal actions of their staff. If a gamekeeper was ever to give
evidence against his employer or manager, he would have practically no
chance of working as a gamekeeper ever again. Gamekeepers coming
forward publicly with information about raptor persecution would
effectively make themselves unemployable.
- Whilst it is invariably gamekeepers committing the offences on
grouse shooting estates, they are not the primary problem. It is the
shooting industry, the managers and employers of gamekeepers, who are
the real problem and who create the environment for gamekeepers to
operate in and who direct the widespread criminal practices taking
place. The desire to produce incredibly high, unnatural numbers of
grouse for driven grouse shooting is the motivation for widespread
illegal predator killing. For many years, there has been numerous
partnership working projects between conservationists and the shooting
industry to find ways to enable this hobby to continue legally, but
despite much help, there has never been any serious engagement from the
shooting industry and the illegal killings continue. If the driven
grouse shooting industry was serious about tackling problems like raptor
persecution it could easily do so very quickly. It is essential to
fully comprehend that this will never happen without serious and
meaningful governmental action.
- I have absolutely no doubt that any voluntary approach or code of
conduct will never be effective. It is clear a robust and enforceable
legal framework, backed up with the resources for rigorous enforcement,
is needed to ensure the environment is properly protected.
- It appears that sometimes employers/managers may be aware that their
gamekeepers are illegally killing raptors, but ignore it. On others
estates, it appears that gamekeepers are given explicit instructions to
illegally kill raptors and are given specialist equipment to that end.
Some estates spend vast sums of money supplying specialist equipment,
firearms, night-sights, thermal imaging sights, illegal poisons, to
enable their gamekeepers to commit crimes and avoid detection.
