The Environment Minister Mike Russell has promised that there will be a new hard line on animal crimes such as bird poisoning. Recent cases such as the poisoning of the a Golden Eagle seem to have caused him to look at the laws.

The article says that the punishments could be the removal of firearm licenses and cutting of farm aid payments.

It will be interesting to see how quickly these new measures are put into place and how harsh they will be on offenders. I would like to see more severe punishments for deliberate poisoning.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotl...970283.stm

I am not certain why Ms Boyack said this:
"Labour's environment spokeswoman, Sarah Boyack responded warily to the proposals.

She said: "We back calls for greater use of financial penalties against landowners, however we would caution against targeting gamekeepers.

"Responsibility and accountability should lie with the estate and not with individual workers." "

Why should not both the estate AND the gamekeeper be held responsible?

Kingfisher

That's ridiculous, individual workers should be held just as accountable as the estate if not more so. After all, they don't have to do as they're told if they know it is illegal. It's not completely the same, but if an employer asked an employee to break any other laws, surely both the employer and the employee would be responsible if the crime was carried out? I don't see why it should be different in this case.

I am not sure on this one .I tend to think that it should be the employer that should be held responsible & the employee to a lesser degree .The employee cannot win, he either gets prosecuted if he gets caught or sacked from his livelyhood for refusing. I think that perhaps it should also be made a worse criminal offence to procure such an action through your employee by direct instruction or intimation.

This post was last modified: 02-09-2007 04:05 PM by tibbar.

It's difficult for the employee as tibbar has said, because if they are asked to do something like that then they are forced to make a decision between their morals and their job or career. I do think you have to have everyone in socitey responsible for their own actions, but the employer should take a large part of the blame.

I think that I agree that it is very hard on the employee. As said above, not only do they risk losing their jobs (with little prospect of getting another post), they also risk losing their homes as most of them live on the estate. How many people with families would be strong enough to disobey their employer knowing the potential consequences? Also, to target the employee would allow an unscrupulous employer to act with immunity as they will always deny all knowledge of their employee's actions.

However, I'd be interested to see by whom/how this new law will be enforced. Sounds like another typical government announcement that says the right thing but delivers very little in the way of change. Can anyone really see extensive fines being imposed on some of the very influential landowners (most of whom probably donate money to political parties)? Or am I just an old cynic?????

Unfortunately for the gamekeeper, he (I assume it's still mostly male gamekeepers) will be the one providing evidence against his employer, and thus still lose his job.

Too, how does one know that the estate owner is not completely aghast at the idea of his/her gamekeeper killing endangered animals, with the gamekeeper being entirely responsible?

Kingfisher

I look forward to seeing how the law is implemented and how it overcomes the problems brought up in this thread - it is does at all. The employee is put in a very difficult position, some may not have a problem with performing these crimes against wildlife but I would imagine most are torn bwteen looking after themselves and their family and looking after wildlife.

It could come down to most cases not leading to a prosecution if there is not enough evidence to support either side - the gamekeeper or the employer.

It's about time wildlife crime laws were tightened up. Even if they prove difficult to enforce, by being enshrined in law, the opportunity is there for those prosecuting to be able to apply for tougher sentences/higher fines.

Although individuals are responsible for their own actions, I think it right that the bulk of the responsibility fall on the landowners as a whole. They direct their employees actions. It wouldn't be very often that you get a gamekeeper laying poison or shooting birds of prey without the employers' knowledge.

Fine any estate responsible the equivalent of a year's shoot(most of the reports seem to come from 'Grouse Moor' regions) - and take away their firearms licence so people are no longer able to shoot there. Such penalties would probably break or come close to breaking an estate, making the stakes too high if they get caught, too continue persecution.

I also think egg collectors should have harsher penalties directed against them too.

Egg collectors should definitely face tougher penalties and a higher risk of prosecution. With endangered bids especially egg collectors could have an extremely detrimental effect on populations.

I suppose that it would only take one prosecution as an example to the rest of the estates and gamekeepers after the laws have been brought in, then I would think any estate would think very hard about commiting any wildlife crimes.