UKH

http://snh.presscentre.com/News-Releases/New-tool-in-fight-against-wildlife...

Will it help?

In reply to aln: Difficult to say at this stage but it'll be interesting to see if any action is taken immediately using the capability to use evidence going back as far as the start of this year.

I also note: "The new measure complements other recent actions to reduce wildlife crime, including vicarious liability for offences against wild birds, which was introduced in 2011." I don't recall seeing any estate owners in court for raptor poisoning recently, it always seems to be the gamekeepers who get done. Is this not being used for some reason?

In reply to Martin W:

Interesting that vicarious liability has been on the books since 2011. As you say, it's always blamed on a 'rogue' gamekeeper whose extracurricular activities just so happen to coincide with his employer's interests...

In reply to aln:

We have to start somewhere......

In reply to JohnnyW:

I agree, but I'm struggling with the logic.

Estate is illegally killing raptors but criminal charges can't be brought for whatever reason.

Using 'balance of probability' rather than 'beyond reasonable doubt' civil case is proved that they are illegally killing raptors. On this basis licence to kill other birds is revoked.

Estate then continues to kill raptors illegally, plus other birds that it's now illegal for them to kill.

Then what?

In reply to Ridge:

Logic is that if one dead Hen Harrier is found on your land you will no longer be allowed (under license) to kill crows.

It would be far, far easier to find (and prove the ownership of) a Larsen trap than a poisoned pigeon carcase, and without the ability to control common "pest" species the management of the shoot would become impossible.

Having said that, vicarious liability would seem a far better way to go in cases where keepers are found with e.g. carbofuran in their possession.

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

Good point.

In reply to aln:

Does that mean that if a raptor is found killed on a recognized shooting estate then the whole estate is closed down?

In reply to mockerkin:

Wouldn't have thought so - just makes predator and vermin control much more difficult - there's nothing to stop an estate raising grouse and other game birds for shooting - but shooting a passing crow would presumably be illegal.