Bird Poisoning - Vicarious liability

[Malcolm]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8109805/Landowners-facing-prosecution-for-bird-poisonings.html

Very interesting.

[Wildfisher]

About time too. it's the only way to stop it. I have said this for years.

Good on you Roseanna Cunningham!

[dazdidge]

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

[Fishtales]

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.

[Wildfisher]

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"

[Inchlaggan]

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

[Inchlaggan]

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.

[Wildfisher]

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.

[Inchlaggan]

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.

[Wildfisher]

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.