[Ian Whittle]

Comments welcome on an article highlighted in the local press today, that I have been monitoring for a while now;
"A gamekeeper for the duke of Northumberland yesterday walked free after being cleared by a court of attempting to trap birds of prey on the aristocrats estate"

"Gary Taylor of Powburn in Northumberland appeared before Alnwick magistrates accused of committing five offences under the Wildlife and countryside act 1981. the two day trial dramatically ended with the 29 year old being cleared of all the allogations centered on practices at the 1200 acre game shooting estate at Linhope, in the Cheviots."
RSPB investigators found a live pigeon held within a large cage trap at comb fell, which they believed was an attempt to catch peregrins and other birds of prey.
The traps can only be allowed to catch birds including members of the crow family, pigeons,sparrows and starling, and must be checked daily.
The investigators monitored the cage covertly for three days before approaching Mr Taylor with the police.
In his defence Mr Taylor stated he had no knowledge of how this pigeon as bait got into the cage, and stated he did not deliberatley set out to entrap birds of prey.
He said " as long as the main preditors such as foxes, stoats and weasels are controlled, birds of prey cause us no harm"
" They are protected by law and we do not persecute them in any way"
Mr Taylor did admit he may not have properly inspected the cage at close hand (for 3 days), to see if it contained any birds, after a live crow he had placed there days earlier had managed to escape!
He also admitted that he had not de-activated two similar cage traps at Het burn and Great Standrop until RSPB officials questioned him. One of the cages contained two dead mistle thrushes.
Guy Shorrock, investigating officer for the RSPB said "We believed our case was firm, but we will continue to pursue prosecutions where ever we feel they are justified."

Yes Gamekeepers need to use traps I suppose, but isnt it as big a part of their responsability to ensure they are used correctly, checked as required, after all if you use your gun inappropriatley, your licence is (or should be) removed. Why then are they free to carry out using traps again, all be it, more discreatly.

Is this the same Mr Taylor in the headlines a few year ago for alledged poisoniong at a North estate?, I wonder?
Ian

(source The journal 23.7.03, page7) (for Michael!)

[steve_nova]

A Plantaganet Duck at that!

[saluki]

"yes he is guilty as charged please believe me when I say to you this nieve attempt at catching a peregrine is so sad.The best way is to 888 a 888888 8888 like they do in USA".

I would have thought it very much dependant upon whether the pigeon - and the two thrushes in the other trap - were in the 'bait' compartment of the trap or in the trap itself. If the former then, unless someone else had been using the trap, one would imagine the keeper guilty. If the later then there would be a slight possibility that he were telling the truth.

Indeed, one would have to be very naive to expect to catch peregrines in a cage trap - shortwings yes, but a wild peregrine is doubtful. The methods normally used by American falconers to (quite legally) capture passage birds requires one to actually be there at the time of capture - cage traps proving largely ineffective in the capture of longwings, though I believe gyrs are occasionally caught in Swedish goshawk traps.

I suppose if the 'keeper was cleared of the initial charge of attempting to trap birds of prey, it would be difficult to prove any negligence on his part took place, after all - according to him - he is simply guilty of leaving an unbaited trap set. Therefore it would be difficult to justify preventing him from using traps in the future.

saluki

[Ian Whittle]

Consider this then, is he fit enough to be allowed to use traps if he does not check them daily as is required? He is aware as a duty of his trade of what is required, even if he was as he says (and No I dont believe him) not intending to trap birds of prey.
Lucky there were not birds of prey left to die in the traps "he forgot" to check. (would he have owned up and taken a dead bird to the RSPB, and admit "he forgot" or would he destroy the evidence quickly? you decide

[Michael Frankis]

I fear he probably got off because the magistrate regularly shoots on the estate in question and knows the man well . . . that sort of thing is rife in this area

Michael

[Ian Whittle]

Michael,
I was awaiting your reply, and thought you would say somehing like that!
I agree!

[Malvolio]

Hope you've got a good libel lawyer Michael.

MV

[saluki]

He appears to be guilty of not inspecting traps that were set but not baited - which apparently, in the case of cage traps, doesn't appear to be a crime. Why anyone would leave traps in this condition, however, is difficult to understand!

Don't get me wrong, I've lived around raptors all my life and find the thought of anyone killing them abhorrent. But it would be difficult IMO to prevent the 'keeper using traps again if he has been found not guilty of the more serious crime. The cruelty issues concerning cage traps normally comes from the mistreatment of the decoy bird which, in this particular case, is non-existant as, apparently, they believed him when he stated he didn't know how the pigeon (or the thrushes) got into the traps. For example, if I put strawberry netting over soft fruit and a blackcap became entangled in it, could I then be prosecuted for attempting to capture wild birds? Or, perhaps more relevant, as I've seen it happen many times, if I left a lobster pot with the gate closed which later caught a hedge sparrow, would I then be guilty of a crime? In both cases I didn't attempt to capture a bird by using bait or a live decoy, which seems to be - rightly or wrongly - how the magistrates see Taylor's case.

It seems the RSPB failed in it's prosecution because it couldn't prove that Taylor had deliberately set out to trap wild birds. If that failed, then IMO it would be impossible to prevent him using traps again, as he isn't guilty of any offence. Yes, I know it stinks, and Michael may very well be near the mark with his comment, but it appears it isn't illegal to not check a cage trap which hasn't been baited. A change in the law might throw up all kinds of difficulties, as in the above two incidences.

saluki

[nirofo]

Well, would you credit that ????

What do you expect.

[Ian Whittle]

Shame they are not allowed to enter any "previous" charges, should a keeper have been charged with similar offences in the past. (even if not proved), next time get a water tight case I suggest!

[pauco]

well how about letting him of lightly.!!!!
why not tie him to a tree with a tawny owl nesting face in nest of
course and let mum owl decide if she thinks hes not going to rob her nest?
bert.
man is the only animal that blushes or needs to.

[cuddy]

I love my county but so much of what i see and hear fills me with a feeling of hopelesness what do we have to do to get a level playing field.

Sometimes i want to be less than passive, things like this are not right.