Jail for killers of birds of prey (1 Viewer)

[Clive A]

Do you believe killers of birds of prey should be given a custodial sentence?
If so sign here.

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petitio...s_to_people_who_kill_birds_of_prey/?Day2Share

 

[John Cantelo]

Whilst I think that, in some circumstances, a custodial sentence may be appropriate, I find myself reluctant to sign up to such a broad and vague petition. This reluctance is further compounded by the semi-literate nature of the petition. I know that this observation will rub some people up the wrong way, but the fact is that, if you want to attract wide support and be taken seriously, you need to write in clear, well phrased and reasonably punctuated English. It need not be perfect, but it should at least show that you’ve taken minimal care to get it right.

 

[Jayel]

Oops

Whilst I think that, in some circumstances, a custodial sentence may be appropriate, I find myself reluctant to sign up to such a broad and vague petition. This reluctance is further compounded by the semi-literate nature of the petition. I know that this observation will rub some people up the wrong way, but the fact is that, if you want to wide attract support and be taken seriously, you need to write in clear, well phrased and reasonably punctuated English. It need not be perfect, but it should at least show that you’ve taken minimal care to get it right.

Oh dear...in judgement of others......:eek!: :t:

 

[ptickner]

I have to agree with John. It appears to have been written quite hastily, and is more of a stream of consciousness than a well thought out argument. While I certainly know what the author is trying to say, I feel that if you are going to ask the world to sign your petition, take an extra minute or two to proofread it.

 

[Farnboro John]

I thought custodial sentences were already an option, or is that just for eggs?

John

 

[John Cantelo]

Oh dear...in judgement of others......:eek!: :t:

Fair point. Corrected. Typing left handed at the moment does make me even more prone to errors, but if I was trying to garner support for a petition I'd have written it in 'Word' first & checked it!

 

[saluki]

I presume 'Chrissie H' is Chrissie Harper who launched the original Vicarious Liability on-line petition a few years ago . . . unless it's Chrissie Hynde of Pretenders fame?

 

[Clive A]

I presume 'Chrissie H' is Chrissie Harper who launched the original Vicarious Liability on-line petition a few years ago . . . unless it's Chrissie Hynde of Pretenders fame?

Yes it's Chrissie Harper.

 

[Clive A]

Whilst I think that, in some circumstances, a custodial sentence may be appropriate, I find myself reluctant to sign up to such a broad and vague petition. This reluctance is further compounded by the semi-literate nature of the petition. I know that this observation will rub some people up the wrong way, but the fact is that, if you want to attract wide support and be taken seriously, you need to write in clear, well phrased and reasonably punctuated English. It need not be perfect, but it should at least show that you’ve taken minimal care to get it right.

I take your point John, maybe the petition was rushed through a bit out of sheer desperation? Yes it's vague, but my point is we just need to get this debated at a higher level. Nobody is saying this is going to become law, but lets get people talking about, what I hope everybody agrees, is a shameful situation.

 

[Clive A]

I thought custodial sentences were already an option, or is that just for eggs?

John

I'm not sure of the current options John, but has it ever happened?

 

[John Cantelo]

This isn’t the place for a discussion of penal reform, but I approach this from the standpoint that there are already too many people in prison and that this option should be reserved for particularly heinous crimes. Besides, as things stand the person who’ll end up in prison will be the gamekeeper, not his boss. Given the nature of the offence and that it largely takes place on private estates, I suspect the threat of custodial sentences will prove to be a hollow one and make little difference. It may make some people less willing to report offences. The threat of the loss of home/employment from the employer who wants 'vermin' exterminated will be more powerful. Hence hitting the estate owners is the way to go – banning hunting on and/or withholding public subsidies for a set number of years to estates with a poor record for example. Licensing game keepers who could be banned from the profession for particular offences would be preferable to prison.

 

[Clive A]

This isn’t the place for a discussion of penal reform, but I approach this from the standpoint that there are already too many people in prison and that this option should be reserved for particularly heinous crimes. Besides, as things stand the person who’ll end up in prison will be the gamekeeper, not his boss. Given the nature of the offence and that it largely takes place on private estates, I suspect the threat of custodial sentences will prove to be a hollow one and make little difference. It may make some people less willing to report offences. The threat of the loss of home/employment from the employer who wants 'vermin' exterminated will be more powerful. Hence hitting the estate owners is the way to go – banning hunting on and/or withholding public subsidies for a set number of years to estates with a poor record for example. Licensing game keepers who could be banned from the profession for particular offences would be preferable to prison.

I tend to agree John in the main, it's just that I would sign a petition calling for the electric chair right now!! I would rather hit the estate owners than the gamekeeper, but he is still fair game to me. Yes there are lots of people in prison, many for far more trivial crimes than bird of prey persecution.

 

[Farnboro John]

I tend to agree John in the main, it's just that I would sign a petition calling for the electric chair right now!! I would rather hit the estate owners than the gamekeeper, but he is still fair game to me. Yes there are lots of people in prison, many for far more trivial crimes than bird of prey persecution.

I'm with you on that, even local extinction (Hen Harrier anyone?) is far worse than killing the odd human, they're more vermin than anything.

I still don't understand why convicted gamekeepers don't immediately lose their firearms certificates - which would remove them from their profession - I can't think of any other group that could retain their FAC with a criminal record.

John

 

[binfield]

I'm with you on that, even local extinction (Hen Harrier anyone?) is far worse than killing the odd human, they're more vermin than anything.

I still don't understand why convicted gamekeepers don't immediately lose their firearms certificates - which would remove them from their profession - I can't think of any other group that could retain their FAC with a criminal record.

John

Am i reading this right. You think a Human life is worth less than a birds life. As for game keepers losing their tickets, wouldn't make any difference, they could still blast away all day as long as its on private land and the gun is not in his/her name. Also most of the time any legal bills etc are covered by estate insurance so good legal teams are hired ,better arguments and defence is made in court leading to lower or no punishment. CPS don't really have the appertite for wild life proscecution unless its high profile. I doubt we will see anybody given any sort of custodial sentence any time soon, i'm afraid wildlife crime comes bottom of the list for the authorities regardless of what we are told. If you look at the size of some area's the police wildlife officers cover (mostly just a single officer) it is near on impossible for them to make a case unless they are on scene quite rapidly or there is video evidence of the crimes being commited. Most wildlife crimes occure far from the public eye.
For any serious action to be taken you need overwhelming public support and presure on the govenment, we just don't have that at the moment. I believe a majority of the general public couldn't care less and we as birders/wildlife lovers are to few in number to get any real deterent from the govenment. At best an offender will be fined , what sort of deterent is that for somebody who ownes an estate worth millions.
I applaued anybody who takes the time and effort to raise awarness of any crime against wildlife , it's an up hill battle that hopefully can be won.

 

[saluki]

As for game keepers losing their tickets, wouldn't make any difference, they could still blast away all day as long as its on private land and the gun is not in his/her name.

Not sure that's strictly true:

A non certificate holder may use a shotgun in the following circumstances:
He may borrow a shotgun from the occupier of private land and use it on that land in the occupier’s presence. For a borrower under 18 years old, the occupier must be over 18 years old.
Whilst at a shooting ground approved by the police for shooting at artificial targets only.
Note that “occupier” is not defined by the Firearms Act 1968 but may be taken to include the owner, tenant or licence holder.

So the gamekeeper would have to be accompanied at all times, which is far from ideal.

I agree with John, that the 'keeper should lose his firearm/shotgun certificates (these are not the same). Most gamekeeper's lives revolve around shooting, losing their certificate would not only ruin their job prospects but impinge greatly on their social life. It might make them think twice.

I applaued anybody who takes the time and effort to raise awarness of any crime against wildlife , it's an up hill battle that hopefully can be won.

Whilst I agree with your point, I'm not sure how much time and effort was involved in setting up this particular petition?

Cheers
Jonathan

 

[Boro Birder]

It really does seem like it's a losing battle, each week you read more reports that another Gamekeeper has been convicted for the illegal killing of a BoP, then the following couple of days another petition is asked to be signed and do we see a difference. No.
Another reason is half the bloody magistrates are so called Shooting enthusiasts so the sentence is then even more lenient.
The only prison sentence I have seen handed down was to the egg collector Matthew Gonshaw, which was featured on the BBC1 One show and that was only 6mnths, should of had the bloody book shot at him.

 

[Adam W]

Not sure that's strictly true:

A non certificate holder may use a shotgun in the following circumstances:
He may borrow a shotgun from the occupier of private land and use it on that land in the occupier’s presence. For a borrower under 18 years old, the occupier must be over 18 years old.
Whilst at a shooting ground approved by the police for shooting at artificial targets only.
Note that “occupier” is not defined by the Firearms Act 1968 but may be taken to include the owner, tenant or licence holder.

So the gamekeeper would have to be accompanied at all times, which is far from ideal.

I agree with John, that the 'keeper should lose his firearm/shotgun certificates (these are not the same). Most gamekeeper's lives revolve around shooting, losing their certificate would not only ruin their job prospects but impinge greatly on their social life. It might make them think twice.



Whilst I agree with your point, I'm not sure how much time and effort was involved in setting up this particular petition?

Cheers
Jonathan

Strictly speaking I don't think you have to be directly accompanied to be classed as 'in the presence of' but I agree that It would be pretty much impossible for a keeper to carry out his job without his own licence and its always baffled me how people convicted are allowed to keep theirs, I know a criminal record doesn't automatically stop you from getting a licence but surely when the crime is directly related to shooting it should.

 

[Farnboro John]

Am i reading this right. You think a Human life is worth less than a birds life.

No, I am simply following the conservation concern about biodiversity to its logical end. You can look around the world and find very few conservationists who think that shooting elephant, rhino and tiger poachers is wrong: I simply think we should apply the same values to Hen Harrier persecution.

If you expressed Homo sapiens in conservation terms it would be of Least Concern. The species is more of a threat to wildlife world-wide than rats are to island biodiversity; it is currently expending resources unsustainably; it breeds uncontrollably and is increasingly free of normal biological controls such as epidemic disease; although alleged to be intelligent, in the mass it acts entirely stupidly. I may not rate a human life less than a bird's; but I'm damned if I see why I should rate it more.

John

 

[binfield]

No, I am simply following the conservation concern about biodiversity to its logical end. You can look around the world and find very few conservationists who think that shooting elephant, rhino and tiger poachers is wrong: I simply think we should apply the same values to Hen Harrier persecution.

If you expressed Homo sapiens in conservation terms it would be of Least Concern. The species is more of a threat to wildlife world-wide than rats are to island biodiversity; it is currently expending resources unsustainably; it breeds uncontrollably and is increasingly free of normal biological controls such as epidemic disease; although alleged to be intelligent, in the mass it acts entirely stupidly. I may not rate a human life less than a bird's; but I'm damned if I see why I should rate it more.

John

When explained in this manner your statement makes more sense John. You had me a bit worried for your sanity for a while there|=)|.

 

[John Cantelo]

It really does seem like it's a losing battle, each week you read more reports that another Gamekeeper has been convicted for the illegal killing of a BoP, then the following couple of days another petition is asked to be signed and do we see a difference. No.
Another reason is half the bloody magistrates are so called Shooting enthusiasts so the sentence is then even more lenient.
The only prison sentence I have seen handed down was to the egg collector Matthew Gonshaw, which was featured on the BBC1 One show and that was only 6mnths, should of had the bloody book shot at him.

Without wishing to minimise the damage done by gamekeepers particularly to a species like hen Harrier, I think it's mistaken to suggest that "it's a loosing battle". Just consider that in recent decades many birds of prey - some that would clearly be the target of irresponsible gamekeepers - have increased very markedly in the British Isles - Red Kite, White-tailed Eagle, Marsh Harrier, Goshawk, Sparrowhawk, Buzzard & Peregrine. If gamekeepers were the all pervasive threat that they were in my childhood, this couldn't have happened. This shouldn't be grounds for complacency, but clearly bird of prey haters aren't winning and we are seeing a positive difference.

Of course, far too many these cases happen, but I'm not sure whether there's been a real increase in offences or just better detection/reporting. It was certainly the case in the past that sympathetic magistrates were overly lenient, but my perception is that sentencing overall is no longer as lenient as it once was (although not perhaps as harsh as we might like). Although magistrates remain overwhelmingly drawn from the professional m/c & retired, this no longer necessarily suggests a sympathy for hunting & shooting (more women, ethnic minorities, etc). Indeed exactly the same bias can be seen in the RSPB.