Outrage as three pole traps found set on North Yorkshire grouse moor (RSPB) (1 Viewer)

An individual has received a police caution after admitting responsibility for setting three pole traps on a grouse shooting estate inside the Yorkshire Dales National Park.

Read More...

A caution??!! Wtf?!

5 climbers in France disturbed a Lammy nest and got 6000euros fine! This is bshit - red handed. What the hell was his excuse? The estate should have their shooting rights revoked.

http://markavery.info/2016/06/01/poletraps-moors-caution/

Some may recall the name van Cutsem and their connection to our royal family. Whilst I want to keep an open mind I still find myself imagining why our boys in blue may not want to pursue further than administering a smacked wrist?

I've written to the North Yorks Police & Crime Commissioner whose website (see www.juliamulligan.org.uk) tells me she has a particular concern regarding rural crime. It's hard to see how such a non-punishment could be dished out other than because the senior policeman involved had rather too much sympathy for the gamekeeper (or his employees) and too little for wildlife. You have to feel sorry for the officers who actually attended the crime scene who acted impeccably. They must be seriously demoralised by the senior officer's inaction.

Interesting reading about the 'caution'. This guy will not have to declare a caution to future employees unless the wording can be changed to say - a 'caution/offence relevant to your current application' rather than certain general categories.

Still reading...

Some comments posted:
I think attention also needs to be turned to the definition or application of a 'caution'. Surely the definition should be changed to include 'declaring a caution where the caution is relevant to your current application'. A caution received after a 'wildlife' crime then must be declared when applying for say a gamekeepers position. On second thoughts might be viewed as a 'positive'.

Have the environment agency commented?

And:
Is this estate actually in the national park? I noticed that certain areas are outside the remit of the park. Of interest would be to know if they receive any subsidies or grants under land stewardship or otherwise.

Am new to this but are the points of law noted anywhere? No animal/bird actually trapped, acting under supervision?, can't see a defence (pleaded guilty) but may have given a defence during questioning, guidelines for similar offences (if anyone has ever been successfully prosecuted in England), employers comments - may not legally be able to act because it was 'only a caution' but it was on their land.

Have the employers had an inspection for their workers and working practices. This man was either acting within his remit or not, if so was he given training in the use of these illegal traps? If not the employers could be held liable for endangering their employee by not giving correct training or supervision. If he had had training what does the law say in the use of 'illegal' traps. Either way someone needs to have a discussion with his boss/employer.

Not providing adequate training is an offence...

Does anyone have any answsers/thoughts on the questions? There may be another angle to make this estate sweat...

Taking this further - operators of chainsaws, for instance, need a certificate of competence before they can use one in anger.
A pole trap is potentially as dangerous with loss of fingers or hand a possibility.

Look I know I'm scratching around the the surface but I'm exploring a different angle with which to approach and potentially prosecute the employer. Someone out there will be more versed in employment law in England. I know when a friend was 'controlled' here for staffing issues they were asked specifically about training in particular of meat slicing machines and other cooking related tools - the staff were also inteviewed and asked about training they had received. My friend could prove that all his employees were adequately trained in the various bits of equipment they would use and also the stories corroborated.

This case would have resulted in a substantial fine in France...

rosbifs said:

A caution received after a 'wildlife' crime then must be declared when applying for say a gamekeepers position. On second thoughts might be viewed as a 'positive'.

Click to expand...

Your second thoughts mirror mine precisely.

In November 2015 the Rural Payments Agency docked the Stody estate 75% of the single payments scheme following the killing of 11 birds of prey on the estate. As with the current case, the management of the estate claimed to know nothing about the gamekeeper's activities but it made no difference as they were still liable for their employee's activities.. Hence, if the estate is in receipt of similar grants then I see no reason why similar sanctions shouldn't apply.

rosbifs said:

Interesting reading about the 'caution'. This guy will not have to declare a caution to future employees unless the wording can be changed to say - a 'caution/offence relevant to your current application' rather than certain general categories.

Still reading...

Click to expand...

He hasn't lost his job only been suspended........

http://www.rspb.org.uk/news/details.aspx?id=359465

This is an example of a successful prosecution...

And another - in North Yorkshire - more intersting because the land owner was prosecuted:
http://birdersagainst.org/pole-traps/

And how are things going with the HH breeding this year? - we don't know other than there can't be much good news to report.

https://raptorpersecutionscotland.w...y-hen-harriers-breeding-in-england-this-year/

rosbifs said:

http://www.rspb.org.uk/news/details.aspx?id=359465

This is an example of a successful prosecution...

And another - in North Yorkshire - more intersting because the land owner was prosecuted:
http://birdersagainst.org/pole-traps/

Click to expand...

A rather different stance to the recent example when the gamekeeper just got an adult caution

JoanT said:

A rather different stance to the recent example when the gamekeeper just got an adult caution

Click to expand...

That's the point. There are potentially some angles where 'we' the public make sure this doesn't rest here. It can't just all come from Mark Avery everytime. John Cantelo has also written to the NYorks crime commissioner - the chief constable seems to be occupied elsewhere...

In view of recent precedents there has got be some points of law that we are not party to. Perhaps to escape with a caution the gamekeeper has turned queens evidence...

Before I write to the health and saftey exec I would like to know who owned these traps. It's not illegal to own them but it is to use them in this way. If they were the estates but for other use ie rabbit or fox then this guy has lacked proper supervision and or training.