The Partnership Against Wildlife Crime (PAW) is much vaunted by government and others in the fight against Wildlife Crime. The suggestion is that by involving all parties with an interest in the topic it will help to change attitudes and bring about a consensus to defeat the shocking catalogue of offenses against our wildlife heritage. There is little evidence that this actually works.

The massive increase in wildlife offenses that took place during a time when the countryside was locked down seems strongly to suggest otherwise. The constant attacks on campaigners against wildlife crime which are often deeply personal and abusive suggest that there is a strong feeling in certain quarters that the law applies to others and not to all. A society cannot allow a situation to develop in which a notable segment feels that they have a right to ignore the wishes of the majority as enacted in law by Parliament.

In a democracy it is perfectly acceptable to campaign for changes to the law BUT unless and until those changes are made the law must be obeyed no matter who those that oppose it are and no matter how strongly their opinions are held. Those who denigrate the law can have no place in a partnership set up to promote it and support its enforcement.