I thought you all would be interested to hear about the proposed changes to tackle wildlife crime in Scotland. The principle behind this proposed change is to ensure that the employers of the employee's committing wildlife crime are held responsible and punished accordingly, this could be up to six months in jail or £5000 or both.
We of course welcome this move and hope to see similar changes to legislation across other parts of the UK. You can read more about this in Mark Avery's blog and an article in the Guardian.
This is a stark reminder of the extent of the persecution still occurring. Take the 4 golden eagles found poisoned in the first half of 2010 alone, sickening isn't it! Whether these were the targets or not, putting out poison in a way that can affect key species like this is disgraceful.
If you suspect you have come across illegal poisoning or are a land manager who wants to find out about appropriate use of poisons then please take a look at the comprehensive advice offered on the Campaign Against Accidental or Illegal Poisoning website.
http://www.caip-uk.info/
Warden Intern at Otmoor.
Hi Ian,
Some positive actions there from the Scottish goverment.
It is such a shame when people decide to poison BoP and especially for all those efforts and years it takes in conservation and re introduction programmes to get these birds thriving again.
I hope this law will now come down hard on those who attempt to break it
Regards
Craig
Look deep into nature, and then you will understand everything better. - Albert Einstein
Thanks for your comments Craig, it is indeed a step in the right direction!
its still not strong enough, any form of poisoning is indiscrimanate, even put down for
foxes, can lead to others being the victims, about time all poisons were baned completly.
or we could bring a law in that makes the guilty ones, try some of the same stuff.
best regards mac
Well it isn't law yet and there are still hurdles to jump.
It's quite telling that the SRPBA's lobbying position appears to be "please continue to look the other way while our members compel their keepers to commit criminal acts".
I can't help thinking that in Grouse moor owner economic terms £5,000 must represent something like a large round of drinks. It'll be seen as merely an extra operating cost to be passed on to the those who are doing the shooting. The prospect of a custodial sentence would be the greater deterrent (if it ever got imposed).
JBNTS
Every day a little more irate about bird of prey persecution, and I have a cat - Got a problem with that?
True JBNTS,maybe i should tweak the title, but if it does go through then it is a positive step.
Custodial sentences are already part of the options for sentencing, up to six months, and from what i can gather that would also be the case under these new proposals. In the latest Birdcrime publication there are cases that have resulted in custodial sentences so we expect that they are applied where appropriate.
Sadly as someone pointed out to me you have to catch them first and then prove it,both of these are very difficult and then it does not even matter if the sentence can be 10 years as most magistrates and judges would still only give them a smacked wrist.I just wish that after this persecution and egg thieves has been going on for at least 100 years someone would solve it but how I do not know,just do not think this legislation will make any difference at all,maximum sentences mean absolutely nothing.It would be better to have severe minimum sentences.Worst of all nearly all the crime like this goes undetected in the remote areas it occurs.
michael s said: Sadly as someone pointed out to me you have to catch them first and then prove it,both of these are very difficult and then it does not even matter if the sentence can be 10 years as most magistrates and judges would still only give them a smacked wrist.I just wish that after this persecution and egg thieves has been going on for at least 100 years someone would solve it but how I do not know,just do not think this legislation will make any difference at all,maximum sentences mean absolutely nothing.It would be better to have severe minimum sentences.Worst of all nearly all the crime like this goes undetected in the remote areas it occurs.
All true enough Sooty - I regret to say.
If there is a chance of a penalty against the shoot operators there will even more pressure on the keepers to ensure that evidence disappears and stays disappeared.
Looks like a lot of political posturing to me.
It can only take effect where the actual miscreant is first identified, since the landowner/employer can only be vicariously liable for someone they have a contractual/employment relationship with. Merely owning the land can not be enough, as someone with no relationship to the owner could lay the poison or fire the gun, and the location of the victim is no indicator of the site of the crime.
Given that the real problem is actually identifying where the crime took place and who actually did it, I wouldn't expect this measure to generate more than a tiny handful of prosecutions. It will stop employers being able to rely on the "rogue employee" response that habitually seems to work, but until the detection rate improves don't expect great things of it.
I would say it is at best a very small part of any solution.
FM