Interesting letter there Ruby, I would be interested in what your reply said.
As for the gamekeepers letter...
1 - most unlikely I would say. What legitimate quarry species looks like or behaves like a large raptor? I can't think of a single one.
2 - Again incorrect. No corpses exist so no evidence exists that a crime took place. If you shoot a harrier and bury the corpse you've still committed a crime, you just haven't been tried and convicted of it.
3) - There are some excellent gamekeepers. On my bird atlas patch is a small estate with successfully breeding buzzards, kestrels and sparrowhawks. The Gamekeeper's attitude is that more pheasants will die on the roads than be taken by his raptors. That said, there are also some old-style morons who treat the law with contempt. Perhaps they ought to be cleaning there own house up before whining about their public persona.
It didn't get published, but here's what I said....
"Sir,
Lindsay Waddell of the National Gamekeepers Organisation suggests that
the 2 Harriers shot over Sandringham were mis-identified 'legitimate
quarry'. Mr Waddell's members have some history of being unable to tell
the difference between a bird of prey and a duck, but anyone with the
most basic knowledge of the species would not make that mistake, nor is
there any suggestion that the 3 witnesses in this case did so.
He also states that no offence has occurred since no corpses were found,
but neglects to mention that the search did not commence until the
following day, when the police arrived to find estate staff already
on-site 'clearing up.'
Mr Waddell worries about gamekeepers' reputations, but their implication
in innumerable cases of illegal shooting and poisoning of birds of prey
over many years speaks volumes.
Presumably he has already forgotten the Sandringham gamekeeper who was
convicted of illegally killing a Tawny Owl in 2006 - or is he saying
that was really a Pheasant?"
