Millden:The Estate’s Response.

Following the conviction of Millden Estate gamekeeper Rhys Owen Davies for animal cruelty offences an unnamed estate spokesperson has reportedly issued the following statement:

“The estate does not condone or tolerate any illegal activity relating to the welfare of animals or wildlife.

We were shocked to learn of all the allegations when they came to light.

The employee involved was suspended by the estate with immediate effect and resigned a few days later when the police investigation was still at an early stage. At no stage was the estate itself the focus of the investigation. These offences did not take place on the estate but happened at locations some distance away and unconnected to the estate“.

The crux of this statement is that the estate knew nothing of these offences and that they did not occur on estate land. No mention whatsoever is made of the very serious firearms offences.

We accept there is no evidence that could be reasonably be presented to a court which suggests that the estate and its employees, with the exception of Davies himself, knew of or were involved in these offences. We do wonder however what this reveals about the competence of those who managed and worked alongside Davies.

Did none of his colleagues or managers notice that he was keeping and training dogs for animal fights at his home on Millden Estate?

Did none of his colleagues or managers notice that his dogs had serious injuries of the sort typically sustained in badger baiting?

Did none of his colleagues or managers notice that he was treating these dreadful injuries himself with surgery and skin staplers ?

Did none of his colleagues or managers notice that he left firearms unattended and unsecured?

Davies was a man so involved in animal cruelty that he recorded his crimes in photographs and ordered copies of them from a commercial printer so that he could compile an album to look at in the comfort of his Millden Estate home. It seems bizarre that someone so obsessed with animal cruelty should pass unnoticed by this group of supposedly highly competent estate managers and gamekeepers.

Perhaps “The estate does not condone or tolerate any illegal activity relating to the welfare of animals or wildlife” but one has to conclude that the estate and its employees are not very bright when it comes to spotting it.

Clearly there are problems at this ‘jewel in the crown’ of driven grouse moors that the estate itself seems reluctant to acknowledge or address.

A ‘general licence restriction’ is wholly insufficient here. The proposed system for grouse moor licensing needs to be up and running as a matter of urgency and consideration needs to be given to assessing the previous history of estates when deciding whether it is appropriate to admit them to the register in the first place.