APPENDIX 9
Memorandum from the National Gamekeepers
Organisation
INTRODUCTION
The National Gamekeepers' Organisation (NGO)
is pleased to make this short submission to the Environmental
Audit Committee's sub-committee investigating wildlife crime.
For the record, the NGO was founded in 1997 and now has over 8,000
members. It represents the gamekeeping profession in England and
Wales. More details about the organisation can be found on our
website: www.nationalgamekeepers.org.uk
GENERAL POINTS
1. Wildlife crime, whilst important, is
on the whole very rare.
2. The only exception to this general statement
is in the case of poaching, which remains a significant problem
and is largely unpoliced.
3. In terms of environmental impact and
species conservation at the population level, crimes against individual
plants and animals are insignificant.
4. However, crimes against wildlife often
receive widespread publicity out of all proportion to their true
significance, it is important always to bear this in mind.
DETAILED COMMENTS
1. Field Sports and Wildlife Management
It is our belief that field sports and the sorts
of wildlife management conducted by gamekeepers (for example:
deer culling, fox control, rat poisoning and pigeon shooting)
are invariably conducted within the law and additionally within
self-imposed codes of good practice. Considering the number of
people involved on a regular basis in these activities, the level
of prosecutions is almost immeasurable small, amounting to no
more than a handful each year. We believe this is strong evidence
that there is no necessity for action in these areas.
2. Poaching
The biggest aspect of wildlife crime, however,
is poaching. By contrast, this is quite widespread and 90% of
gamekeepers have been affected by it at some time or another.[6]
Poaching of reared pheasants from pens or of trout from fishponds
cannot truly be described as wildlife crime, as the birds are
captive and are thus property, but poaching released gamebirds
from their roosts at night, or chasing wild deer or hares with
running dogs by day is indeed wildlife crime. It is a serious
matter not just because of the economic damage it can do to the
estates which suffer it[7]
but also because there can be severe welfare implications, for
example where a deer's rear quarters are torn at by a pursuing
dog and it then escapes to die a lingering death.
Quotes on Poaching from the NGO Rural Crime Survey
2000
"We regularly get gangs of illegal hare
coursers—up to 70 people four or five times a week."
Part-time 'keeper, Cambridgeshire.
"Last year we caught 17 different sets of
poachers and dog men."
Headkeeper, North Yorkshire.
"I myself am retired due to injury suffered
from dealing with poachers. I feel that the law is not severe
enough with poachers brought before the courts."
Retired 'keeper, Bedfordshire.
Poaching offences are largely defined in the
nineteenth century Game Acts, which are quite archaic and nowadays
make relevant evidence-gathering and convictions hard to come
by. Often, magistrates hand down minor penalties that do little
to discourage further offending.
The things that could be done to improve on
this situation include:
— Clearer offences for poaching, especially
if the Game Acts are to be revised as the Minister Ben Bradshaw
has recently stated in a Parliamentary reply.
— More resources to be allocated to
rural police forces, who often now regard poaching as unpoliceable.[8]
— Imposition of higher penalties, in
particular the confiscation of equipment, vehicles and dogs, to
prevent convicted poachers from re-offending.
3. Over-Protection of Species
There is a strongly held view in the countryside
that some species, which can become problematic if their numbers
go unchecked, have been over-protected by law. The most serious
example is the badger. The significance of this species to the
current review is that increasing numbers of farmers and others
are now openly talking about taking the law into their own hands
to deal with the problems of TB, land erosion and crop damage
by killing badgers. This should be an early warning that a
traditionally very law-abiding sector of the community is becoming
fed up with bad law passed at a distance by those removed from
the practicalities of rural management.
We ask that within the Government's wider ongoing
review of the Wildlife and Countryside Act and related legislation,
the whole issue of badger protection and management is fully researched
and re-examined. Badger numbers must be brought back under control
before they get completely out of hand and it is unlikely that
tinkering with the current licensing procedures will be sufficient
to ensure this. The consequences of inaction will be a significant
increase in wildlife crime against this species.
To a lesser extent the same arguments apply
to cormorants, which are now significant predators of fish farms,
and to certain birds of prey that are increasing countrywide and
endangering wildlife and gamekeeping interests. Unless politicians
and civil servants can "get real" about these issues
and allow reasonable and well-regulated species management, our
prediction is that there will be a dramatic increase in wildlife
crimes related to them in the coming years. If resources for policing
in rural areas are not increased, such crimes will go very largely
undetected. It would be far better to address the cause
of crime at source by re-examining the over-protection currently
afforded to these species.
4. EU Law and the UK Situation
It is a weakness of legislation at the EU level
that it is hard to pass wildlife laws that are as relevant to
olive groves as they are to grouse moors. Habitats and wildlife
populations vary from place to place and wildlife laws need to
vary also.
A current Defra review of the General Licences
under which pest birds can be controlled in the UK is a case in
point. It suggests among other things that rooks, herring gulls
and jays should no longer be controlled for the purpose of conserving
wild birds, yet all three species are egg predators and can do
great damage to game and wildlife. The reason for the proposed
change, we are told by Defra, is that the UK licences are at odds
with the EU Birds Directive. If this is so, it is the Birds Directive
that needs to change, to make it more flexible to the specific
needs of member states, rather than the UK licences.
The same sorts of issues arise in relation to
other aspects of wildlife law. For example, the Birds Directive
links the shooting seasons for birds to their breeding and migration
periods. Migration and breeding not surprisingly take place at
different times in different parts of the EU. Even general principles
such as not shooting during the breeding season can break down
in some cases. The woodpigeon breeds all year round in the UK,
so control to prevent agricultural damage must inevitably overlap
with breeding, yet this too is under attack from protectionists
in Brussels.
All these are examples of the need for legislative
flexibility when dealing with something as dynamic as wildlife
management. Anything the EAC sub-committee can do to advance the
idea of a more flexible approach to wildlife management will be
welcomed by the National Gamekeeper's Organisation.
Postscript: Fly Tipping
Whilst it is not strictly a wildlife law issue,
we feel we must take this opportunity to draw your sub- committee's
attention to a serious increase in the amount of fly tipping our
members are experiencing. As the eyes and ears of the countryside,
gamekeepers are often the first to pick up on this sort of problem.
Recent changes in the law requiring people to pay for the correct
disposal of cars and electrical goods, coupled with increases
in Landfill Tax, are leading to the countryside becoming an unofficial
dustbin. We urge your sub-committee, perhaps as part of a separate
investigation, to look into this increasingly serious problem
and to encourage the Government to do something about it.
April 2004
6 The NGO carried out a Rural Crime Survey in December
2000. 10% of Britain's gamekeepers responded. 90% said they had
experienced poaching at some time and 78% said "on a regular
basis". Back
7
Estimated at anything from £500 to £10,000 per estate
per year (NGO Rural Crime Survey 2000). Back
8
63% of gamekeepers rate the police response to poaching reports
as "poor" or worse. Back
| 
