- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Copied and pasted with permission. Get your quills out and write to your mp.
My waffle first:
From: Adrian Lee [mailto:adrian.lee2@btinternet.com]
Sent: 01 November 2011 10:01
To: birdsmagazine
Subject: In defence of gamekeepers and landowners.
Sir,
I read your magazine with relish when I get it and am always dismayed when, rightly so, some gamekeepers are named and shamed for the ridiculous “Victorian” practices of killing birds of prey. Not all keepers are alike and, as like many other professions, the minority get bad press and the good work of many others goes unnoticed.
I worked as a gamekeeper many years ago, due to that fact I now have access to some private estates for my hobby of wildlife photography. This brings me into contact with gamekeepers on the estates, these people, whilst secretive and private people, are always willing to share knowledge and experience once you have gained their trust. They do not kill birds of prey, nor do they kill other smaller predators, they have a dislike of foxes and control them accordingly. They tell me where the sparrowhawks are nesting,where the otters are on the river, which setts the badgers are using and many other examples. In return, I tell them if I see foxes, supply them with photographs of the kingfishers on the river or the deer grazing,for example, which they hang in their houses or in the shooting lodges, these photographs of our wildlife gives them as much pleasure as they do me.
The majority of keepers do like wildlife and look after most of it.One estate has a good selection of sika deer and roe on it, these are as well looked after as any pheasant, dog men are given short shrift, the badgers are watched and the setts are checked for human activity, as is the otter holt. So, yes, they do care about all our wildlife.
What to do with the rogue elements? There will be no change in the practice of senseless killing until the landowners are held accountable for any actions that occur on their land by the people they employ. Hiding behind the age old excuse of “I didn`t know” must not be allowed to continue, they should know, or the estate manager should know. These people must also be held accountable as well. A registration scheme must be set up for keepers, one that shows that they are fit and proper people, any serious offences would remove them from the register and render them unable to take a new position elsewhere in the country. It is all too easy for bad keepers to move around the country and get a new job at the moment. A national register is a must to try and root out the bad ones whilst keeping the good ones.
In a nutshell, the minority spoil the whole reputation of the profession.
Landowners. Again, some are good, some are bad. The landowners who give me permission to photograph on their land are superb, they give me access to all their land and we have regular meetings and chats about what is going on, what is living there and how we can help things along. On one estate,a non shooting one, we have opened up all the barns, put nest boxes for barn owls in there, we have sited kestrel boxes, tawny owl boxes as well. Imagine my delight, and the landowners delight, when we had some success within 8 months of opening one barn. See attached photograph. Since then we have another barn owl using a different barn some way over the other side of the estate, we hope they are male and female. He has osprey nesting on land he owns in Scotland, it gives us all great pleasure to see them return every year and rear their young.
The shooting estates have far more predators than the non shooting estate, which is logical really, they have an abundance of food all year round. Songbirds feed at the pheasant feeders all winter, as such we have lots of sparrowhawks for example, mice feed off the overspill, owls and stoats eat the mice. Most keepers realise that they lose very few pheasants to birds of prey, a miniscule amount compared to what gets knocked over on the roads, as such they leave them in peace.
A good keeper is a huge plus to wildlife, a bad one, well, we all know the answer to that. But don`t tar them all with the same brush, they are not all like some of the barbaric idiots appearing in your magazine.
Regards
Adrian Lee
Reply from RSPB officer responsible for birds of prey:
Dear Adrian
Thank you for your email in response to the latest issue of Birds. As the officer responsible for our work on birds of prey, the editor has asked me to reply on his behalf.
Your perspective as someone who has seen things from both sides, so to speak, is very welcome and informative. I’m happy to report that your basic ideas for progress – to focus on the “rogue elements” and to hold landowners more accountable – are key elements in our advocacy work in this area.
As you rightly point out, many gamekeepers carry out excellent work for conservation, including helping birds of prey. We regularly highlight that the recovery of species like the buzzard and red kite would not have been possible without the positive change in attitudes from most lowland gamekeepers. It’s a key point that while 70% of people convicted of persecuting birds of prey are gamekeepers, this does not mean that most gamekeepers persecute birds of prey. Indeed, our recent Birdcrime report press release included a quote from one such gamekeeper who loves seeing kites over his estate. We hope building this coalition, including with progressive shooting organisations such as BASC, will help further isolate those who continue to kill birds of prey. It’s in everyone’s interest not to tar all gamekeepers (or landowners) with the same brush.
The introduction of “vicarious liability”, making landowners legally responsible for the actions of their gamekeepers has been one of our key asks for several years now. I agree with you that gamekeepers can feel forced into breaking the law and that it is often the landowners ultimately driving the illegality. A couple of years ago we were actually approached by two gamekeepers on one estate who had both been sacked for refusing to illegally kill birds of prey by their manager, proving this really does happen. As a result of that incident, we launched a confidential hotline for gamekeepers to call if they wanted to report illegal practice without risking their jobs. Happily, a form of vicarious liability has recently been introduced in Scotland and will come into force on 1 January 2012. We wait with interest to see if this will work as well in practice as we all hope. Unfortunately we are a long way from such positive steps being taken elsewhere in the UK. When the issue was raised in parliament with the Biodiversity Minister Richard Benyon, rather than supporting the ideas behind vicarious labiality, he simply stated birds or prey were properly protected and that the positive work gamekeepers do should be celebrated. While in once sense this is not technically incorrect, I find his willingness to apparently ignore the widespread ongoing illegal persecution and failure to offer any meaningful steps to eliminate the criminal minority of gamekeepers worrying.
Thank you again for your email. I’m encouraged that someone with so varied experience would suggest ideas that seem very much in line with our current bird of prey work. We have made some progress, but clearly still have a long way to go. If you would like to help further, perhaps you would consider writing to your MP, highlighting your views on the potential value of vicarious liability and asking that it be raised in parliament. It will be a difficult journey to tackle persecution of birds of prey, but every step in the right direction is vital and if you could help us with this particular step, I would be very grateful.
Best wishes
Jeff Knott
My waffle first:
From: Adrian Lee [mailto:adrian.lee2@btinternet.com]
Sent: 01 November 2011 10:01
To: birdsmagazine
Subject: In defence of gamekeepers and landowners.
Sir,
I read your magazine with relish when I get it and am always dismayed when, rightly so, some gamekeepers are named and shamed for the ridiculous “Victorian” practices of killing birds of prey. Not all keepers are alike and, as like many other professions, the minority get bad press and the good work of many others goes unnoticed.
I worked as a gamekeeper many years ago, due to that fact I now have access to some private estates for my hobby of wildlife photography. This brings me into contact with gamekeepers on the estates, these people, whilst secretive and private people, are always willing to share knowledge and experience once you have gained their trust. They do not kill birds of prey, nor do they kill other smaller predators, they have a dislike of foxes and control them accordingly. They tell me where the sparrowhawks are nesting,where the otters are on the river, which setts the badgers are using and many other examples. In return, I tell them if I see foxes, supply them with photographs of the kingfishers on the river or the deer grazing,for example, which they hang in their houses or in the shooting lodges, these photographs of our wildlife gives them as much pleasure as they do me.
The majority of keepers do like wildlife and look after most of it.One estate has a good selection of sika deer and roe on it, these are as well looked after as any pheasant, dog men are given short shrift, the badgers are watched and the setts are checked for human activity, as is the otter holt. So, yes, they do care about all our wildlife.
What to do with the rogue elements? There will be no change in the practice of senseless killing until the landowners are held accountable for any actions that occur on their land by the people they employ. Hiding behind the age old excuse of “I didn`t know” must not be allowed to continue, they should know, or the estate manager should know. These people must also be held accountable as well. A registration scheme must be set up for keepers, one that shows that they are fit and proper people, any serious offences would remove them from the register and render them unable to take a new position elsewhere in the country. It is all too easy for bad keepers to move around the country and get a new job at the moment. A national register is a must to try and root out the bad ones whilst keeping the good ones.
In a nutshell, the minority spoil the whole reputation of the profession.
Landowners. Again, some are good, some are bad. The landowners who give me permission to photograph on their land are superb, they give me access to all their land and we have regular meetings and chats about what is going on, what is living there and how we can help things along. On one estate,a non shooting one, we have opened up all the barns, put nest boxes for barn owls in there, we have sited kestrel boxes, tawny owl boxes as well. Imagine my delight, and the landowners delight, when we had some success within 8 months of opening one barn. See attached photograph. Since then we have another barn owl using a different barn some way over the other side of the estate, we hope they are male and female. He has osprey nesting on land he owns in Scotland, it gives us all great pleasure to see them return every year and rear their young.
The shooting estates have far more predators than the non shooting estate, which is logical really, they have an abundance of food all year round. Songbirds feed at the pheasant feeders all winter, as such we have lots of sparrowhawks for example, mice feed off the overspill, owls and stoats eat the mice. Most keepers realise that they lose very few pheasants to birds of prey, a miniscule amount compared to what gets knocked over on the roads, as such they leave them in peace.
A good keeper is a huge plus to wildlife, a bad one, well, we all know the answer to that. But don`t tar them all with the same brush, they are not all like some of the barbaric idiots appearing in your magazine.
Regards
Adrian Lee
Reply from RSPB officer responsible for birds of prey:
Dear Adrian
Thank you for your email in response to the latest issue of Birds. As the officer responsible for our work on birds of prey, the editor has asked me to reply on his behalf.
Your perspective as someone who has seen things from both sides, so to speak, is very welcome and informative. I’m happy to report that your basic ideas for progress – to focus on the “rogue elements” and to hold landowners more accountable – are key elements in our advocacy work in this area.
As you rightly point out, many gamekeepers carry out excellent work for conservation, including helping birds of prey. We regularly highlight that the recovery of species like the buzzard and red kite would not have been possible without the positive change in attitudes from most lowland gamekeepers. It’s a key point that while 70% of people convicted of persecuting birds of prey are gamekeepers, this does not mean that most gamekeepers persecute birds of prey. Indeed, our recent Birdcrime report press release included a quote from one such gamekeeper who loves seeing kites over his estate. We hope building this coalition, including with progressive shooting organisations such as BASC, will help further isolate those who continue to kill birds of prey. It’s in everyone’s interest not to tar all gamekeepers (or landowners) with the same brush.
The introduction of “vicarious liability”, making landowners legally responsible for the actions of their gamekeepers has been one of our key asks for several years now. I agree with you that gamekeepers can feel forced into breaking the law and that it is often the landowners ultimately driving the illegality. A couple of years ago we were actually approached by two gamekeepers on one estate who had both been sacked for refusing to illegally kill birds of prey by their manager, proving this really does happen. As a result of that incident, we launched a confidential hotline for gamekeepers to call if they wanted to report illegal practice without risking their jobs. Happily, a form of vicarious liability has recently been introduced in Scotland and will come into force on 1 January 2012. We wait with interest to see if this will work as well in practice as we all hope. Unfortunately we are a long way from such positive steps being taken elsewhere in the UK. When the issue was raised in parliament with the Biodiversity Minister Richard Benyon, rather than supporting the ideas behind vicarious labiality, he simply stated birds or prey were properly protected and that the positive work gamekeepers do should be celebrated. While in once sense this is not technically incorrect, I find his willingness to apparently ignore the widespread ongoing illegal persecution and failure to offer any meaningful steps to eliminate the criminal minority of gamekeepers worrying.
Thank you again for your email. I’m encouraged that someone with so varied experience would suggest ideas that seem very much in line with our current bird of prey work. We have made some progress, but clearly still have a long way to go. If you would like to help further, perhaps you would consider writing to your MP, highlighting your views on the potential value of vicarious liability and asking that it be raised in parliament. It will be a difficult journey to tackle persecution of birds of prey, but every step in the right direction is vital and if you could help us with this particular step, I would be very grateful.
Best wishes
Jeff Knott
, and some money from nigeria to pay for them 
