Gamekeepers, a law into themselves?

[nightrider 13]

12 hours ago, Paul_ said:

Apologies for my "sensational" post. I was just so gobsmacked when I read the article. A response to the Wildlife Trust post asks the key question:

 

" …… why are police helping these criminal gamekeepers? A quick search shows that these wildlife abusers are routinely killing all sorts of protected wildlife on the moors. But saying that, very few of these gamekeepers are ever prosecuted. I wonder why?"

 

And isn't it illegal to obstruct members of the public from leaving a car park on land that doesn't belong to you?

 

also rather foolish. Not everyone is as well behaved as this couple may have been. Some people would react violently to masked people trying to prevent them leaving a car park.

[Lockjaw 11]

On 25/02/2019 at 08:58, Alsone said:

The police did the right thing stopping the people leaving the area and asking a few questions and in calling the gamekeepers down to identify if these were the people they'd seen or not.
 

Strange they should feel the need to apologise then...

 

https://www.wildsheffield.com/birdwatchers-confronted-by-masked-men/

[Alsone 10]

21 hours ago, Lockjaw said:

Strange they should feel the need to apologise then...

 

https://www.wildsheffield.com/birdwatchers-confronted-by-masked-men/

It appears they apologised because they said they had video evidence when clearly they didn't.

 

[Alsone 10]

On 25/02/2019 at 23:29, Paul_ said:

Apologies for my "sensational" post. I was just so gobsmacked when I read the article. A response to the Wildlife Trust post asks the key question:

 

" …… why are police helping these criminal gamekeepers? A quick search shows that these wildlife abusers are routinely killing all sorts of protected wildlife on the moors. But saying that, very few of these gamekeepers are ever prosecuted. I wonder why?"

 

And isn't it illegal to obstruct members of the public from leaving a car park on land that doesn't belong to you?

 

Paul you clearly no little about the countryside. Just as with any walk of society, there are a bad few. Gamekeepers do not routinely go around killing protected wildlife. In fact you'll find bodies such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Gamekeepers Association routinely condemn any illegal practices  and often work closely with organisations such as the RSPB  to bring those who flout laws to justice.

As for the Countryside in general, most English wetlands are owned and maintained by Shooting Syndicates and the money that goes into conservation comes from these syndicates. The same with many other habitats and land areas. The reason is simple, far from being deranged people who run around the countryside blasting every animal in sight as some would have you believe, shooters generally carry out conservation of habitat as the aim is to enable a perfect habitat where target species eg grouse, breed to excess and then to shoot off the excess. It's not in anyone's interests to decimate a population. As a result, large amounts of money and time and effort are put into conservation. The BASC also work closely with Natural England to maintain and conserve the countryside:

https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/basc-and-natural-england-renew-partnership-agreement/

 

[Mouserat 10]

No, of course, game keepers / estate managers for shooting estates don't go around breaking the law and routinely kill protected species.  It's only a few rogues individuals:-

 

https://ww2.rspb.org.uk/Images/illegal-killing_tcm9-411686.pdf

 

https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/wildlife-and-the-law/wild-bird-crime/the-birdcrime-report/

 

And of course shooting organisations work hard in partnership with government and conservation organisations to prevent this sort of crime:-

 

https://www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk/articles/ngo-resignation-letter-from-the-raptor-persecution-priority-delivery-group

 

The last time I encountered a shooting party, they blatantly lied to me about my right to cross open access National Trust on well-established paths, and insinuated, as gamekeepers are wont to do, that I knew nothing about the countryside.

[alchresearch 214]

This has been doing the rounds on social media today:

 

Watchdog permits 170,000 wild bird killings in five years

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/22/conservation-body-issues-170000-wild-bird-kill-permits-in-five-years

 

Its been alleged that the "forestry interests" are pheasant shooting sites because the peregrine falcons, buzzards and red kites are taking the shooting stock.

[K1Machine 10]

5 hours ago, Alsone said:

Paul you clearly no little about the countryside. Just as with any walk of society, there are a bad few. Gamekeepers do not routinely go around killing protected wildlife. In fact you'll find bodies such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and the Gamekeepers Association routinely condemn any illegal practices  and often work closely with organisations such as the RSPB  to bring those who flout laws to justice.

As for the Countryside in general, most English wetlands are owned and maintained by Shooting Syndicates and the money that goes into conservation comes from these syndicates. The same with many other habitats and land areas. The reason is simple, far from being deranged people who run around the countryside blasting every animal in sight as some would have you believe, shooters generally carry out conservation of habitat as the aim is to enable a perfect habitat where target species eg grouse, breed to excess and then to shoot off the excess. It's not in anyone's interests to decimate a population. As a result, large amounts of money and time and effort are put into conservation. The BASC also work closely with Natural England to maintain and conserve the countryside:

https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/latest-news/basc-and-natural-england-renew-partnership-agreement/

 

You seem rather confrontational with your replies if you dont mind my saying.

[Lockjaw 11]

23 hours ago, Alsone said:

It appears they apologised because they said they had video evidence when clearly they didn't.

 

Nope.  That was the gamekeepers.  Read the article carefully; it states clearly why the police apologised and shows that your claim they did the right thing is incorrect.

[Lockjaw 11]

22 hours ago, Mouserat said:

No, of course, game keepers / estate managers for shooting estates don't go around breaking the law and routinely kill protected species.  It's only a few rogues individuals:-

 

https://ww2.rspb.org.uk/Images/illegal-killing_tcm9-411686.pdf

 

https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/wildlife-and-the-law/wild-bird-crime/the-birdcrime-report/

 

And of course shooting organisations work hard in partnership with government and conservation organisations to prevent this sort of crime:-

 

https://www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk/articles/ngo-resignation-letter-from-the-raptor-persecution-priority-delivery-group

 

The last time I encountered a shooting party, they blatantly lied to me about my right to cross open access National Trust on well-established paths, and insinuated, as gamekeepers are wont to do, that I knew nothing about the countryside.

 

22 hours ago, alchresearch said:

This has been doing the rounds on social media today:

 

Watchdog permits 170,000 wild bird killings in five years

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/22/conservation-body-issues-170000-wild-bird-kill-permits-in-five-years

 

Its been alleged that the "forestry interests" are pheasant shooting sites because the peregrine falcons, buzzards and red kites are taking the shooting stock.

**cough** Hen Harriers!

[Alsone 10]

On 27/02/2019 at 11:31, Mouserat said:

No, of course, game keepers / estate managers for shooting estates don't go around breaking the law and routinely kill protected species.  It's only a few rogues individuals:-

 

https://ww2.rspb.org.uk/Images/illegal-killing_tcm9-411686.pdf

 

https://www.rspb.org.uk/birds-and-wildlife/advice/wildlife-and-the-law/wild-bird-crime/the-birdcrime-report/

 

And of course shooting organisations work hard in partnership with government and conservation organisations to prevent this sort of crime:-

 

https://www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk/articles/ngo-resignation-letter-from-the-raptor-persecution-priority-delivery-group

 

The last time I encountered a shooting party, they blatantly lied to me about my right to cross open access National Trust on well-established paths, and insinuated, as gamekeepers are wont to do, that I knew nothing about the countryside.

Yes it is only a few rogue individuals and organisations such as the BASC don't support it and enlist their members to try to bring those involved in any crime to book:

https://basc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2017/11/Dont-kill-harriers-Nov-Dec-2017.pdf

 

On 27/02/2019 at 12:24, alchresearch said:

This has been doing the rounds on social media today:

 

Watchdog permits 170,000 wild bird killings in five years

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/22/conservation-body-issues-170000-wild-bird-kill-permits-in-five-years

 

Its been alleged that the "forestry interests" are pheasant shooting sites because the peregrine falcons, buzzards and red kites are taking the shooting stock.

That's the watchdog. If a licence is issued then it's legal. I don't know who applied for those licences, but if you object your issue is ultimately with Natural England for issuing them.

It doesn't alter the fact that most wetlands are owned and conserved by shooting groups and interests and most conservation is carried out by those same groups, and that it's not in any groups interest to reduce populations in an unsustainable way.

On 27/02/2019 at 15:49, K1Machine said:

You seem rather confrontational with your replies if you dont mind my saying.

I apologise if my post came across that way. The internet is a hard medium as they say and tone tends to get somewhat lost.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Alsone

[Alsone 10]

8 hours ago, Lockjaw said:

Nope.  That was the gamekeepers.  Read the article carefully; it states clearly why the police apologised and shows that your claim they did the right thing is incorrect.

Quite clearly they were apologising for relying on evidence the gamekeepers said when they hadn't in fact seen it. That was a mistake. However, the police were right to stop and question individuals seen leaving a crime scene where they had information to suggest those individuals may have been involved in a crime. As I said earlier, if a crime was reported up my road and I was seen walking down from that area and fitted the description of someone given in information to the police, then I would expect to be stopped. In fact I have been. 2 minutes stood by the car, the matter was clarified and I was allowed on my way. I welcome it. If we had more policing like that we'd have less crime.

Your attitude seems at times to be very anti police if you don't mind me saying.

Edited February 28, 2019 by Alsone

[Lockjaw 11]

14 hours ago, Alsone said:

Quite clearly they were apologising for relying on evidence the gamekeepers said when they hadn't in fact seen it. That was a mistake. However, the police were right to stop and question individuals seen leaving a crime scene where they had information to suggest those individuals may have been involved in a crime. As I said earlier, if a crime was reported up my road and I was seen walking down from that area and fitted the description of someone given in information to the police, then I would expect to be stopped. In fact I have been. 2 minutes stood by the car, the matter was clarified and I was allowed on my way. I welcome it. If we had more policing like that we'd have less crime.

Your attitude seems at times to be very anti police if you don't mind me saying.

I don't mind you saying that, or anything else for that matter, although I am mildly puzzled at how "Strange they should feel the need to apologise then..." and "Nope.  That was the gamekeepers.  Read the article carefully; it states clearly why the police apologised and shows that your claim they did the right thing is incorrect" both of which were comments aimed at *your* claims could come across as my attitude being even slightly anti-police.

 

As for the point, can't disagree with your "As I said earlier..." section but that doesn't detract from the fact you claimed the police had done the right thing when , in fact, they had subsequently apologised for how they treated the two people.  you introduction of a possible cause of the mistreatment being the fault of the gamekeepers is merely a distraction from this clear point.

 

HTH