Raptor Persecution UK has highlighted once again the complete absence of any comment whatsoever from the various organisations that represent shooting, gamekeeping and the owners of country estates following convictions of gamekeepers for wildlife crime. We too have raised this in the past most recently when a gamekeeper at Millden Estate (that “Jewel in the Crown” of driven grouse shooting) was convicted and imprisoned for wildlife and firearms offences.

But in the case of the landowners and the managers of shoots it is not just their silence but their failure to act that is condemning their ‘sport’ to oblivion.

It is well acknowledged that persons interviewed by law enforcement organisations are not obliged to answer questions put to them. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the courts can draw an inference from this in Scotland they cannot. Either way there has to be evidence to put an individual or individuals before the courts and silence frequently makes this impossible. A search may discover one or multiple dead birds of prey on a shooting estate. They may be found out in the open, in the remains of a fire, cached under a dry-stane dyke or even just dumped in a bin behind a keeper’s cottage awaiting later disposal. The crucial thing is to establish individual responsibility. On estates with a number of gamekeepers the wall of silence is extremely effective in preventing the gathering of sufficient evidence to bring an individual before the courts. Frustrating as it is prosecutors will rightly not bring cases against multiple individuals on the basis that one of them must be guilty and courts could not convict on such flimsy evidence anyway.

Landowners and shoot managers are however in a very different position. Shoot managers can insist that their employees do not break the law and where evidence comes to light that they may have done so they can conduct their own enquiries once the official ones are concluded. Whilst it is perfectly legal and reasonable to give ‘no comment’ answers in a criminal investigation it is not acceptable in an enquiry conducted by an employer. There is a relationship of ‘good faith’ between an employer and employee that is broken be the refusal to cooperate with an enquiry into disciplinary matters. If shoot managers actually used this (which they almost certainly do if someone is failing to carry out their duties in any other respect) then we would see far less wildlife crime as the ‘bad apples’ were identified and removed from the profession. And we do mean removed not just shifted to another role on a different estate until the heat dies down.

Landowners who let out shoots could easily make it a part of the agreement that the law must be obeyed and that shoot managers must conduct rigorous enquiries when it appears that it has not been.

This simple act by landowners and shoot managers would soon make a huge difference to the incidence of wildlife crime on shooting estates. One would think that these rich and powerful individuals with such expensive legal representation would be only too happy to use employment law to reduce wildlife crime amongst their employees just as they use it to reduce theft, poor timekeeping and many other ills that affect them. It is almost as if they don’t actually want to do anything to reduce crime. Surely not?!