http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8109805/Landowners-facing-prosecution-for-bird-poisonings.html
Very interesting.
About time too. it's the only way to stop it. I have said this for years.
Good on you Roseanna Cunningham!
Have to say I totally agree with it.
New legislation is comming into force next year in my line of work that will do exactly the same, ie make my employers responsible for my actions, not only them but also our customers and myself. That way everyone concerned takes more notice and makes sure things are done in the correct manner.
No more "I didn't know he was doing it" Of course they do, how else do they think the number of raptors are controlled to safeguard their game birds. Raptors will do what they are naturally equipped to do, and if you want to rear gamebirds on your estate then you have to learn to live with some losses due to predation.
cheers
daz
Birds fly. They could eat the poison and, unless it was fast acting, be miles away before they die. I realise the proof of criminal activity is on the prosecution but what about innocent until proven guilty? I knew a guy who flew Buzzards over an estate in Aberdeenshire with the owners and the gamekeepers consent. He was flying it close to the boundary with another estate and the gamekeeper blew it out of the sky. It landed on the good keepers side and if it hadn't been the fact that there was a witness, the other keeper ended up fined and losing his job, who would have been blamed? There are a lot of gamekeepers who manage 'their' land their way without any consultation with the owners or managers.
It will be interesting to see how the first test case goes.
The burden of proof for a successful prosecution remains the same as it is now (very high). All that really changes is that if it is proven the landowner who "had no idea it was going on" is also nailed. With that hanging over them it will hopefully make them take a more active interest in the activities of their "rouge keepers"
Yes, there are irresponsible landowners and gamekeepers that poison raptors but the first few cases brought to court under this new legislation are going to be extremely interesting to watch.
A poisoned raptor found on Forestry Commission land, an absentee landowner who has not been in the UK for decades, a corpse found within feet of an estate boundary?
It is simple to pick holes in this nonsense.
However it is good political point scoring. Cliches and caricatures. Filthy-rich lairds killing grouse for fun, murderous, uncaring gamekeepers, environmentally friendly government, saving the planet.
But what else was in the new legislation and what will come in the future?
And it does affect wild fishers.
Take a look at what is happening already.
ENABLE RANT MODE
Do you fancy fishing the some of the West Inverness-shire lochs (Affric, Cluanie, Loyne, Garry, Poulary)? Not without permission from Scottish Natural Heritage, you can?t.
http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/pls/portal/Sitelink.Show_Site_Document?p_pa_code=9189&p_Doc_Type_ID=28
Why?
http://gateway.snh.gov.uk/pls/portal/Sitelink.Show_Site_Document?p_pa_code=9189&p_Doc_Type_ID=3
Well, at least I can use my right to roam and take a look at these birds. Possibly not says SNH. To quote from their website-
"The right of responsible access introduced by the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 extends to nature reserves and other conservation areas, but remember that these places are carefully managed for nature conservation and to safeguard rare animals and plants. Take care to avoid damaging the site or disturbing its wildlife, or interfering with its management or enjoyment by others. Depending on your activity, you might be requested to follow a specific route or to avoid exercising access rights in a specific area: following such local guidance can help to safeguard the natural heritage of these areas."
Well, at least I am pleased that the birds are being protected. I wonder how the project is going? Sadly SNH and the RSPB do not want you to know, website quote again-
?Viewing and download access to this dataset is restricted for the following reason. The information held within this dataset relates to a threatened bird in the UK that may be vulnerable to human disturbance, habitat loss or other factors. At this time, we believe that full disclosure to the public may lead to environmental harm. This sensitive information may be made available under licence to specific organisations and individuals that need to use them for conservation work or to avoid harm to the environment.?
So much for the benefit to tourism then.
(Actually I do know the answer for a few of these lochs but would probably have to kill myself if I told you.)
Of course the protection of raptors would have nothing to do with this. Nice birds that only eat vermin and carrion or lambs that ?would probably die anyway?.
http://www.ypte.org.uk/animal/eagle-golden-/117
But those manky Crofters still complain. No worries, Birdyman knows best-
?The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds described the claims of some crofters as nonsense and said that the birds would have taken only carrion. It said that the birds thrived mainly on a diet of herring gulls, fulmars and fish fed to them by friendly trawlermen.?
Ahhhhhh, nice trawlermen. That would not be the dead fish that they cannot land under EU legislation, that would be nice fish carefully selected for the eagles.
So the scientists must be wrong about raptors taking lambs-
http://www.sasa.gov.uk/mediafiles/3AD4BCAC_F0EF_FB0B_A8C865B87729CED5.pdf
And this video must have been faked-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXQE7C1CPWM
For Pete?s sake can we stop taking antagonistic stances and try to do some joined-up thinking on our environment and wildlife.
DISABLE RANT MODE
Quote from: piscatus absentis on November 05, 2010, 06:46:51 PM
A not very far fetched example. Someone publishes something on this forum and someone else takes exception to it and eventually it ends up in a criminal court. Is Fred (the owner) vicariously liable?
Not likely to be a criminal court but quite possibly a civil one.
Google "Kwikchex" for further information.
Quote from: piscatus absentis on November 05, 2010, 06:46:51 PM
What happens when we develop the dreaded "mission creep" and the legislation starts being used for purposes that it was never planned for.
I don't buy that. It's too much like the old pro-hunting scare tactic, ban fox hunting / hare coursing and they'll ban the lot bollox This move is simply putting landowners on the same footing as any other employer where they bear responsibility for the actions of those who work for them if it can be proven they have been complacent. Right now they appear to have a privileged position. this is simply removing that privilege.
The SNP have got this right.
Quote from: admin on November 05, 2010, 06:56:10 PM
if it can be proven they have been complacent. Right now they appear to have a privileged position.
I presume you mean "compliant".
In which case the law already covers this. Instructing an employee to break the law, or failing to report the crime can result in conviction.
What this change does (at best) is reduce the burden of proof in order to achieve such a conviction or (at worst) remove it entirely.
Nor is the landowner necccessarily the employer of the person responsible, employment may be via a landagent.
Nice idea as a deterrent, but likely to fail in the courts.
Compliant or complacent. Any employer can be deemed complacent, if for example, he has not provided sufficient guidance or training. The point is the burden of proof remains as it is, with the prosecutor. In a few of recent high profile cases, for instance the notorious case in the borders,when the keeper was prosecuted and the laird got off Scot free, the laird too would be in front of the beak. Let's just say this might bring sight to blind eyes and encourage lairds / factors to take more of an interest in what their keepers get up to. I think the SNP have got it right, for once.
Quote from: admin on November 05, 2010, 07:44:45 PM
Compliant or complacent.
Probably "complicit" is best! What is interesting to me is that vicarious liability has a long-standing history in Scots Law. However it is in civil law, particularly the law of negligence: a master has responsibility for the actions of his servant within certain parameters.
What I find interesting is that guilt or innocence in a criminal case does not mean that a further action cannot be brought under Civil law where there is a much lower standard of proof. That is "on the balance of probabilities compared with " beyond reasonable doubt".
What bearing does my preamble have on this? Just one thing - I know of no case where the civil law of negligence has been applied to these cases. I can't think why. Perhaps one of the lawyers on the forum could advise?
Malcolm
Good news, perhaps in combination with this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-11665227
Some more landowners might see that grouse arn't the cash cow that frequents their estates?
Aye Scotaidh, Scotland has some real treasures and the madness of grouse shooting economics is not one of them. It'll take time, but things will change eventually. There will always be a place for huntin' shootin' and fishin' but they should not be to the exclusion of everything else. This weekend more walkers will take to the hills than shooters over the entire year. In a democracy legitimacy comes in numbers.
Personally, I welcome the legeslation. I would very much like to see it extended to cover the directors of organisations where major 'accidents' happen, such as on the railways, at sea, transport and building, et al.
I'm pleased to see such a positive response to this proposed legislation, I have some small involvement in attempting to enforce the current laws. As admin says there still needs to be a high level of proof to bring a case to court so there is no need to worry too much about Innocent parties being convicted. The experience I have is that the guilty escape punishment in almost all cases with 'big boys done it an ran away' being the most regular plea. In recent years prosecutions have failed even although poison was found in vehicles and equipment on the basis that is was shared equipment and no one individual could be held responsible. The change in the law may mean that where ample evidence of poisoning is found but a particular keeper responsible can't be identified the owner/manager can still be charged.
Mr S suggests broadening the scope to cover companies in the case of accidents. This could temper the 'profit at all costs' attitude. This is of course the very same attitude that drives the management much of game shooting and grouse moors in particular. Many of the offenders I witness are not traditional owners employing local keepers directly but multinational management companies bringing in their own teams of keepers from elsewhere usually south of the border. They lease the ground and spend a lot on infrastructure to ease the path to the butts for their clients. In order to maximise their profits no predator or competitor can be left alive. The Victorian wildlife management pattern in alive and well in the Scottish uplands, it's just different people executing it.