An absolute hoot of an opinion piece in yesterday’s Press & Journal from ‘Guest Columnist’ Peter Clark who is described as “public affairs manager for the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BASC) in Scotland“. Peter feels that “Gamekeepers are, first and foremost, key workers, without whom Scotland’s iconic landscapes would be devoid of the plethora of flora and fauna that we see on our moorlands, forests and glens.”

Peter is very concerned about the abuse received by “two thirds of gamekeepers“. We wholeheartedly condemn abuse of any group or individual but perhaps when the public believe that there is rampant criminality within a group and that it is being studiously ignored they become frustrated and in some cases that leads to anger and abuse. Completely wrong, but perhaps inevitable.

So far so typical. As is what Peter didn’t write about.

No mention of the award winning gamekeeper involved in a dog fighting ring at the ‘Jewel in the crown of driven grouse moors’.

No mention of the numerous other gamekeepers convicted for wildlife crime offences over many years.

No mention of the increasing number of General Licence restrictions applied to individuals or estates by Nature Scot where “there is evidence to suggest that a wild bird or birds has/have been killed, injured and/or taken, and/or that an attempt has been made to do so other than in accordance with a licence, or where General Licences are being otherwise misused”.

No mention of the threatening letter sent to B.B.C. presenter Chris Packham which the Scottish Gamekeeper’s Association was so desperate to claim that he wrote himself.

No mention of the dead badger nailed to the gate of Chris Packham’s home.

No mention of the vehicle crashed into the gate of Chris Packham’s home and then set alight.

No mention of the abuse including threats of rape and other physical injury regularly received by many of those who dare to ask questions about why the law is not being enforced in the area of wildlife crime, who campaign for it to be strengthened or who have the temerity to disagree with the pro-shooting lobby.

A question for Peter (and we would be happy to give him space to answer it should he desire). When gamekeepers are so concerned about the abuse that they receive why do they seem to be so silent about the vile abuse directed at those who politely but firmly hold differing opinions? Pot & kettle spring to mind.

Over to you Peter.