APPENDIX 10
Memorandum from North East Derbyshire
Badger Group
1. SCALE AND
IMPACT OF
WILDLIFE CRIME
Clearly the particular experience of our Group
relates to offences against badgers but we are individuals who
are active "in the field" and are therefore aware of
a range of problems. Offences against badgers and their setts
are commonplace. Less than two hours ago, for example, I returned
home having been called out to a sett at Dronfield (near Chesterfield)
where five of 11 entrances had deliberately been blocked solid
with earth. No doubt more would have been blocked had not a lady
walking her dog shouted at the man responsible. This, unfortunately,
is no isolated incident and badger digging continues to be a problem
in this area. Indeed cruelty inflicted in the name of sport appears
endemic. Perhaps not classed as crime (although it should be)
I have twice found foxes nailed to trees apparently whilst still
alive, making it clear that a small minority still derive some
sort of pleasure from inflicting pain and suffering. This small
minority have the capacity to cause damage to wildlife quite disproportionate
to their numbers. I regularly see children wandering in the woods
armed with quite powerful air rifles and there is no doubt in
my mind that many birds pay the price. Probably threatened species
among them. But perhaps the most indiscriminate and destructive
force are the lampers, these are often violent people openly threatening
landowners with arson and other forms of damage if they report
their activities. I have no confidence that the Hunting with dogs
Bill will stop this or even do a lot to slow it down in the present
climate.
2. IS THE
FRAMEWORK OF
THE LAW
ROBUST ENOUGH
TO DEAL
WITH WILDLIFE
CRIME?
The scope of International and European law
is beyond the remit of a small wildlife Group such as this. So
far as the laws of this Country are concerned we feel there is
much to be done. Again our particular expertise and experience
lies with badgers but in general terms there are things that make
no sense to any thinking person with a conscience of any kind.
How can it possibly be right to differentiate between a captive
animal and a wild one when someone is inflicting gross pain and
suffering upon it? Does one suffer less than the other?
If there is a clear need for controls to be
imposed upon a problem species we go along with that. However,
the law needs first to insist that the clear need is proven before
requiring the control to be carried out as humanely as possible.
Deliberately causing unnecessary suffering should always be a
criminal offence.
3. RESOURCES
A review of current badger legislation to close
loopholes would be very welcome. Many people believe badger diggers
to be "casual amateurs". A few are perhaps, but most
are hard core regulars who set out very well prepared not only
with equipment but with good knowledge of the area and an agreed
story to tell in the unlikely event of their capture. Capture
is probably not a good word to use since there is no power of
arrest and a power of arrest is most definitely needed to allow
the Police to deal effectively with the few who do get caught.
Badger digging is linked up with drugs and gambling. Not in every
case of course but where it is, it is hard core crime and the
Police need the powers to do more than just scratch the surface,
and that is what is happening now. Many of these people are serious
thugs and they rely on limited Police powers. To demonstrate just
how organised they are, there is a "team" comprising
a solicitor and a professional witness who travel around the country
defending just about every badger digging case that is brought
to Court. In comparison, at local level you will be fortunate
to find a prosecutor with any knowledge of wildlife issues or
perhaps much interest either.
The prosecution of wildlife crime requires specialised
investigation and a prosecutor with a really good background in
the subject. At the scene much evidence can be lost if suspects
leave before the arrival of experienced badger group members (but
there is no power to detain them). From personal knowledge I know
that clear cut cases are lost because prosecutors don't know when
or how to challenge claims and statements made in defence. I believe
the only way to redress this altogether unsatisfactory situation
is to locate an enthusiastic prosecutor and provide them with
both the training and funding that will allow them too to travel
round the Country providing the necessary prosecution skills allowing
the Courts to arrive at a more just and balanced verdict. That
certainly is not happening at present.
The Protection of Badgers Act 1992 uses the
term "current use" but fails to define it. The prosecution
is thus faced with the problem of having to establish that badgers
were at home on the day of the dig. The only way to do this is
to have someone sit outside the sett for many hours or maybe days
so they can say they saw a badger come out of a hole. This is
unrealistic and the term needs to be defined properly and in line
with the intentions of the Act.
4. DIALOGUE AND
CO-OPERATION
I am in no doubt that bodies like English Nature
and the Environment Agency have, within their ranks, many who
have a very good understanding of what needs to be done to improve
matters for wildlife in this Country. I have no doubt either that
both are tragically under resourced. Under the circumstances I
can't see either of these two major players volunteering to take
on further responsibilities. Perhaps not relevant to wildlife
issues but examples of how this under resourcing does cause concern
are the way that the Environment Agency encourages self monitoring
of both dust and water pollution at opencast sites. On another
occasion a report of a farmer spraying foul smelling waste foodstuff
on land at 10.30 pm met with a promise to see if somebody could
be found to have a look at the situation—and no subsequent
feedback. I don't believe this is down to apathy, it's lack of
resources.
With two Government bodies who ought to be the
major players in supporting wildlife sidelined by a lack of funding
who will deal with wildlife crime? In truth, nobody really has
a handle on how much wildlife crime there is. If, for example,
we report an incident of badger digging to the Police all we are
given is an incident number. Because it is not a recordable crime
it is not separated from the many hundreds of other reports of
nuisance handled by the Police on a weekly basis and it becomes
lost amid this mass. As a result it is not seen as a problem and
we have stopped bothering to report anything that doesn't require
an immediate response.
Events that are really crimes against wildlife
are frequently impossible to deal with as wildlife crime. In a
local river we have a population of threatened native crayfish.
The river runs in a privately owned woodland through which there
is a permissive right of way for walkers. Over the past couple
of years a group of trail riders have taken to riding their motor
cycles up a significant length of this river bed. Requests to
stop have met with abuse and the Police seem unable to find the
resources to deal with them, indeed, at the end of the day what
would they deal with them for? Certainly not for wildlife crime.
Also in our area we have quite a large piece
of land, formerly an ash tip, that is owned by a construction
company located many miles away in Durham. It came into their
possession as a part of some take over or other, it is not available
for development and although it may appear on their books as an
asset it is of little use or interest to them. Over a good number
of years the place has gone wild and badgers have established
a couple of setts on there. In the past 12 months or so it has
been "discovered" by owners of not only motor cycles
but four wheel motors. A number of trees have been chopped down
and some of the bikers are racing over and around the badger setts.
The chances of bringing a successful prosecution for interfering
with a badger sett are poor indeed since we would realistically
have to prove knowledge they knew there was a sett there. And
that's if we could raise sufficient enthusiasm in CPS to take
the case.
Wildlife generally needs a better deal than
it is getting. On behalf of the membership of the North East Derbyshire
Badger Group I sincerely hope the Committee will be pushing to
see that it happens.
April 2004
| 
