Attempted Hen Harrier persecution in Derbyshire caught on camera
Ivan Ellison said
Sat Jun 11 6:19 PM, 2016
Great news, hopefully the start of better times ahead.
Craig Higson said
Fri Jun 10 7:40 PM, 2016
Yep, if other big landowners take the same approach maybe the persecution might just stop. On those sites anyway. There's still the issue of the sites in private ownership. Still its a step in the right direction and the NT deserve a pat on the back.
Paul Risley said
Fri Jun 10 5:18 PM, 2016
brilliant news if only more land owners would follow suit
ryanosborne said
Fri Jun 10 4:09 PM, 2016
Excellent, well done to the NT.
David Walsh said
Fri Jun 10 9:11 AM, 2016
An update on the decoy hen harrier in the Peak District.
A search produced five or six threads dealing with harrier persecution, but this thread relates to the incident in question
Ivan Ellison said
Mon May 9 10:28 AM, 2016
Lots of good comments and some straight to the point. As an avid birdwatcher and shooting man, over the last few years I have been totally disgusted with the actions of the majority of gamekeepers- some say the minority, but as someone who WAS actually involved,I say otherwise. I have highlighted "was"as I have stopped shooting as my own protest against these flagrant breaches of wildlife laws. Obviously no laws were broken in my presence, those that know me will know why. The problem we are up against is purely money and greed. Most of you will have some idea how much money is spent on a days shooting but many do not. When a man can spend in excess of £50,000 entertaining guests for one day, we haven't a hope in hell of matching that. The gamekeeper can expect to get in tips off grateful guns between £400 and possibly well into thousands . One way to make the landowners, leasees of shooting rights responsible and to sit and listen is to make them liable for the actions of their staff or people who lease land off them. The other way would be to make full use of the law and send them to prison and maximum fines- see articles on wildlife crime on the continent- huge fines put back into conservation efforts. Come the day I can walk round city park areas and see goshawks flying around, as in Berlin, I will be a happy man and may take up shooting again- personally I do not think that will happen and the gun cabinet will remain empty to be used to store camera equipment.
In relation to this incident , we all know what his intention was. However identifying him and proving it in a court of law are two entirely different things. All we can ask is you remain vigilant when out and about, gather evidence if possible but do not put yourselves at risk. Anyway as said before make an effort to attend hen harrier day and show your support.
-- Edited by Ivan Ellison on Monday 9th of May 2016 12:01:45 PM
-- Edited by Ivan Ellison on Monday 9th of May 2016 12:02:11 PM
Paul Risley said
Sun May 8 10:23 PM, 2016
Craig Higson wrote
"Rob, I don't think anyone disagrees with you. What me and others are getting at (I think it's others not just me ) is that there are other things that could be done aside from a police investigation. There is enough evidence to demonstrate that this person was up to no good. PDNP could stop it happening again simply by removing the shooting rights as its highly likely to be someone with permission.
Spot on Craig, this incident is a year on year occurrence in this area, in 2006 the RSPB published the following document and was heavily criticised by the shooting industry for insinuating a problem actually existed.
On page six a member of the public reported two armed men dressed in camo gear in 2002 coming out of woodland with sound amplification equipment after hearing Hawk calls from a known Goshawk roost, 10 years ago they started to talk about this known problem, in 2012 they actually escalated discussions and agreed population targets for individual species.
they are still talking about it and the continuing discussions only seem to suit one side. The only way Raptor persecution will stop in these areas is by banning all shooting activity for the following season in any area were known or suspected persecution has taken place
Craig Higson said
Sun May 8 5:13 PM, 2016
Rob, I don't think anyone disagrees with you. What me and others are getting at (I think it's others not just me ) is that there are other things that could be done aside from a police investigation. There is enough evidence to demonstrate that this person was up to no good. PDNP could stop it happening again simply by removing the shooting rights as its highly likely to be someone with permission.
Rob Creek said
Sun May 8 1:11 PM, 2016
The original comment seems to have been overlooked in that the NT investigation was hoped it would have more teeth than the police investigation...and my point still stands that the Police hands are tied to do anything as they haven't got anything to get their teeth into. They've got nothing to go on as far as who this individual is, who are they going to charge for carrying a firearm, using a decoy Harrier, etc etc There's no chance of an identification in the supplied footage, so it's ok saying he was breaking the law, he was on private land, he was attempting to shoot Hen Harriers, ask the landowner who he was...etc
In all those comments ... WHO? Who was in the video? Who was carrying a firearm? Who was on private land? Who was attempting to shoot Hen Harriers using a decoy?
For all intents and purposes it could be absolutely anybody. We know what he was doing, it's obvious, but I'm afraid the reality is unless someone knows and namedrops him, he won't be caught.
Paul Risley said
Sat May 7 9:17 PM, 2016
The guy is trying to shoot a Harrier it's that simple, if hes a full time keeper there wont be any Crows around on the moor at this time of year he will have already larsen trapped them and shot any active nests out, you use decoys to attract a target species, there are plenty decoys available for crows this guy has a unique decoy, a Harrier decoy and surprisingly a Harrier had been recorded in the area a few days previous. This happened on National Trust land in a National park. Last year 5 male Harriers disappeared in Bowland in the last couple of months 4 Red Kites have been shot in the north east including the latest one off it's nest,
These Harriers and Kites should be spreading into our area but are not due to persecution from the shooting community, we should be able to watch these birds over local moors regularly but can't.
Whether you agree with it or not, managing land for game does have some small conservation benefit.
I disagree, the annual release of an estimated 40 million non native game birds cannot possibly be good, locally on my patch we lost Grey Partridge soon after the first release of Pheasants, how often has this been replicated across the country. there will always be winners and losers in nature whenever a change takes place, any winners as a consequence of a shooting estate are simply a by product of said activity and are not intentional.
Anyone who has not yet signed Mark Averys E-petition to ban driven Grouse shooting would you please consider doing so, would you also ask as many of your relatives and friends to do so as well, this won't get Grouse shooting banned but will at least hopefully put pressure on these estates to act within the law.
I am definitely not an after banning all shooting, but raptor persecution is beyond a joke, and grouse moor management has intensified to a point where there are few benefits for many other species. ........................................................................................................
Glad you brought this up Craig as a lot of people seem to miss the point that the campaign is not to ban grouse shooting but "Driven Grouse" shooting as it calls for too intensive management.
When it first started it was considered unsporting by the old brigade who preferred "walked up game" using pointers and spaniels and a full day walking the moor. A lot more sustainable.
I can't see this lot going back to that when they're now driven to the butts in Land Rovers and the land owner picking up £30,000+ per day for 6 guns.
Plenty of MPs with interests in grouse moors.
Sorry to sound pessimistic.
Roger.
PS. Definition of a Pessimist ....... An Optimist with experience of life !
-- Edited by Roger Baker 3 on Saturday 7th of May 2016 08:30:07 PM
Craig Higson said
Sat May 7 6:18 PM, 2016
JamieDunning wrote:
This chap is clearly in the wrong, but to understand this problem properly we need to consider his motivations. There's nothing more sweeping than watching a short video of someone commiting (or attempting to commit) a crime and assuming that we know why, and what needs to be done about it.
-- Edited by JamieDunning on Saturday 7th of May 2016 11:31:34 AM
Without wishing to sound argumentative, the question has to be what do you think he was doing then Jamie? I know/have known numerous people who shoot, and the only reason to be out with a gun and a decoy is to attract something you wish to shoot. Seeing as moors aren't renound for their wildfowl or wood pigeon numbers, and it's clearly not a crow, and it's clear from the associated story that the birders identified it as a hen harrier. So, I must admit to being at a loss as to what else this bloke might have been up to. I also understand he up and left as soon as he realised he was being watched just to add to the suspicious element.
I am definitely not an after banning all shooting, but raptor persecution is beyond a joke, and grouse moor management has intensified to a point where there are few benefits for many other species.
-- Edited by Craig Higson on Saturday 7th of May 2016 06:18:45 PM
-- Edited by Craig Higson on Saturday 7th of May 2016 07:40:21 PM
JamieDunning said
Sat May 7 11:23 AM, 2016
This chap is clearly in the wrong, but to understand this problem properly we need to consider his motivations.
There's nothing more sweeping than watching a short video of someone commiting (or attempting to commit) a crime and assuming that we know why, and what needs to be done about it.
-- Edited by JamieDunning on Saturday 7th of May 2016 11:31:34 AM
C Brown said
Fri May 6 10:46 PM, 2016
JamieDunning wrote:
Whether you agree with it or not, managing land for game does have some small conservation benefit. I imagine the NT would argue that allowing shooting is a pragmatic response to managing uplands 'for everyone'.
The conservation benefits from upland burning to create artificially inflated red grouse populations must be infinitesimally small as I'm struggling to see them. See Walshaw Moor, above Hebden Bridge.
Regards, Chris J- B.
-- Edited by C Brown on Friday 6th of May 2016 10:49:32 PM
Ivan Ellison said
Fri May 6 10:25 PM, 2016
Some sweeping statements here. Hope to see you all at hen harrier day in August this year to show your support against this type of crime.
-- Edited by Ivan Ellison on Friday 6th of May 2016 10:30:19 PM
Craig Higson said
Fri May 6 12:55 PM, 2016
JamieDunning wrote:
Whether you agree with it or not, managing land for game does have some small conservation benefit. I imagine the NT would argue that allowing shooting is a pragmatic response to managing uplands 'for everyone'.
Couldn't agree more Jamie, but as the video 'appears' to point towards criminality, managing for all includes allowing am activity that has a criminal element involved that then impacts on other users. As I said above, I can understand why the police wont/cant do much with this, but certainly the PDNP must take some responsibility - its their land and they know who has permission to shoot on it. Simply stopping the lease for grouse shooting would stop this almost straight away - notwithstanding lowland shooting interests persecuting raptors as well of course.
JamieDunning said
Fri May 6 12:33 PM, 2016
Whether you agree with it or not, managing land for game does have some small conservation benefit. I imagine the NT would argue that allowing shooting is a pragmatic response to managing uplands 'for everyone'.
...the police have apparently said they will take no further action on this matter. The landowner, the National Trust, has said they will investigate. One of the interesting points being made is why the National Trust allow shooting on their land in the first place. I wonder how many people realize it goes on. A concerted campaign to put pressure on the NT to do more for conservation would be interesting.
In this case, it is a bit frustrating because this guy is up to no good, but the burden of proof for criminal cases is stricter than that, and he could presumably produce a successful defence, which I think is Avery's point. I doubt anyone would grass him up either, so they might genuinely never find out who it was. But when you see prima facie evidence like this you want somebody to be held to account.
John Watson said
Fri May 6 9:09 AM, 2016
As I understand the law, the short video proves the person had intent to commit a wildlife offence - and "intent" is a crime in itself. The police would not have been able to identify the suspect, so no prosecution is possible for wildlife crime, weapons offences or even trespass
However, given that the only plausible purpose for this crime is to protect game birds, I'd have thought the police should at least interview the landowner possibly with a view to a search for the decoy
In future events, obviously it would be a risk to intervene. I don't trust anyone stupid enough to own or use a gun. However, in an extreme case it's worth remembering that the range of a shotgun is not very far, which is why he was sited just 10m from the decoy. I'm far from being an expert, but I don't think even a heavy bore shotgun could reach 100m - assuming you know it's not a rifle. A telescope or binoculars can see much further. Also, the offender has a car to be photographed.
Rob Creek said
Thu May 5 9:26 PM, 2016
I totally agree with what you are saying Craig, there may be something the police can do IF they can get any kind of lead on who the individual might be and if he is breaking the law by illegally carrying a firearm on someone else's land without permission, and using a decoy Hen Harrier for the purpose of 'luring' in the illegal persecution of a protected British Bird of Prey.
He could have permission to be on and shoot on that land, he could even be the landowner. Unlikely, I know, but in theory true. So in the eye of the law, until the police can establish whether or not any of these supposed likely outcomes are true, maybe all of them, 1 of them, or maybe even none of them, then my point is what can they get their teeth into which was Ryan's main comment...nothing until either something happens that is the shooting of a Bird of Prey or if information is given to them that could possibly lead to incriminating circumstances for the individual concerned.
Think of it in this way...it's difficult to bring a charge or conviction to someone who obviously has intent to do something but hasn't actually done it yet, and you don't even know who it is because quite frankly the person in that particular image or footage in this case could be absolutely anyone. I know it doesn't sound a good way of looking at it but in all honesty mate, you usually find that that is the reality of the situation, and in this case there are no hard facts it seems as yet to me, that could be used as permissible evidence for a prosecution. Only a few ifs, buts, and maybe's.
I hope I'm proved wrong for the bird's sake, the one that nobody has seen this individual kill yet.
Craig Higson said
Thu May 5 6:38 PM, 2016
Rob Creek wrote:
Unfortunately as bad and sickening as this is, the problem the police are likely to have is firstly the man in the video although in possession of a firearm and is using a decoy Harrier, he hasn't actually done anything [yet] to be arrested for as he's probably licensed for the firearm, and he didn't kill a Hen Harrier, but actually realised he was being filmed so walked away.
Secondly the quality of the images / video taken wouldn't lead to anyone being prosecuted as it would be virtually impossible to identify them from that video, so I may sound harsh but that is probably the reality of the situation. Actually give the police something to get their teeth into...and they probably will.
You never know though, the National Trust may uncover something and you don't know what some country folk are like, they may know who he is or indeed who was likely to be in that area at that time, and his name may accidentally get mentioned. If a name did crop up, the police would possibly then pay a visit to the relavent property and hopefully discover incriminating evidence!
Hmm.
Whilst the person in question hasn't (as far as we know) shot any protected birds of any species, he does appear to be armed. The law states that you must have permission to shoot on land that isn't your own. The law also states that you must have good reason for being on land without permission if you are carrying a a fire arm. So if you are walking along a main road with an air rifle/shotgun/ak47 - even if its in a case - and you can't explain where you are going, and that destination is not home, a gunsmiths, a shooting range, or land where you have permission you are committing an offence. In either case, it doesn't matter whether you are licensed or not! At least thats my understanding of the law.
So, whilst I agree that identifying the individual in question is probably impossible from this video, there are a few things that you would think the police and landowner could / should be doing. Firstly, if the bloke is not a ' poacher' (and why should he be? Most poachers are in it because they end up with something to eat/sell at the end of their illegal activities) then he must have permission to shoot over that land. Therefore, a good starting point you would think, would be for the police to have a word with all those who have permission (and I'm guessing the PDNP know who they are, or if not whatever syndicate has leased the shooting rights should know). You would also think that the PDNP would be taking the opportunity to review its leases. If its not someone with permission, then we have an armed man walking freely around a National Park, with no shooting permission, no good reason for being there, and actually participating in something that looks decidedly suspicious.
Apart from the obvious reasons to suspect its a local keeper, I suspect it will be someone with permission as it would be much easier to explain to the police that you were 'out shooting crows and here's my permission Mr policeman sir, no I wasnt shooting at anything I wasnt suppose to be' than it would to explain why you were walking across a public space with a 12 gauge shotgun. The first involves the police proving a negative, in the latter case you're nailed straight off.
So, I agree they won't be able to prosecute anyone, but there is a heck of a lot that could be done that could also result in something positive.
-- Edited by Craig Higson on Thursday 5th of May 2016 06:39:42 PM
-- Edited by Craig Higson on Thursday 5th of May 2016 06:40:57 PM
Rob Creek said
Thu May 5 1:05 AM, 2016
Unfortunately as bad and sickening as this is, the problem the police are likely to have is firstly the man in the video although in possession of a firearm and is using a decoy Harrier, he hasn't actually done anything [yet] to be arrested for as he's probably licensed for the firearm, and he didn't kill a Hen Harrier, but actually realised he was being filmed so walked away.
Secondly the quality of the images / video taken wouldn't lead to anyone being prosecuted as it would be virtually impossible to identify them from that video, so I may sound harsh but that is probably the reality of the situation. Actually give the police something to get their teeth into...and they probably will.
You never know though, the National Trust may uncover something and you don't know what some country folk are like, they may know who he is or indeed who was likely to be in that area at that time, and his name may accidentally get mentioned. If a name did crop up, the police would possibly then pay a visit to the relavent property and hopefully discover incriminating evidence!
brilliant news if only more land owners would follow suit
Excellent, well done to the NT.
Good news, perhaps?
https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2016/06/10/national-trust-pulls-grouse-shooting-lease-in-peak-district-national-park/
A search produced five or six threads dealing with harrier persecution, but this thread relates to the incident in question
As an avid birdwatcher and shooting man, over the last few years I have been totally disgusted with the actions of the majority of gamekeepers- some say the minority, but as someone who WAS actually involved,I say otherwise. I have highlighted "was"as I have stopped shooting as my own protest against these flagrant breaches of wildlife laws. Obviously no laws were broken in my presence, those that know me will know why.
The problem we are up against is purely money and greed. Most of you will have some idea how much money is spent on a days shooting but many do not. When a man can spend in excess of £50,000 entertaining guests for one day, we haven't a hope in hell of matching that. The gamekeeper can expect to get in tips off grateful guns between £400 and possibly well into thousands . One way to make the landowners, leasees of shooting rights responsible and to sit and listen is to make them liable for the actions of their staff or people who lease land off them. The other way would be to make full use of the law and send them to prison and maximum fines- see articles on wildlife crime on the continent- huge fines put back into conservation efforts.
Come the day I can walk round city park areas and see goshawks flying around, as in Berlin, I will be a happy man and may take up shooting again- personally I do not think that will happen and the gun cabinet will remain empty to be used to store camera equipment. In relation to this incident , we all know what his intention was. However identifying him and proving it in a court of law are two entirely different things. All we can ask is you remain vigilant when out and about, gather evidence if possible but do not put yourselves at risk.
Anyway as said before make an effort to attend hen harrier day and show your support.
-- Edited by Ivan Ellison on Monday 9th of May 2016 12:01:45 PM
-- Edited by Ivan Ellison on Monday 9th of May 2016 12:02:11 PM
Craig Higson wrote
"Rob, I don't think anyone disagrees with you. What me and others are getting at (I think it's others not just me ) is that there are other things that could be done aside from a police investigation. There is enough evidence to demonstrate that this person was up to no good. PDNP could stop it happening again simply by removing the shooting rights as its highly likely to be someone with permission.
Spot on Craig, this incident is a year on year occurrence in this area, in 2006 the RSPB published the following document and was heavily criticised by the shooting industry for insinuating a problem actually existed.
https://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/PeakMalpractice_tcm9-132666.pdf
On page six a member of the public reported two armed men dressed in camo gear in 2002 coming out of woodland with sound amplification equipment after hearing Hawk calls from a known Goshawk roost, 10 years ago they started to talk about this known problem, in 2012 they actually escalated discussions and agreed population targets for individual species.
https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/bird-of-prey-initiative-in-peak-district-national-park-fails-to-deliver/#comments
they are still talking about it and the continuing discussions only seem to suit one side. The only way Raptor persecution will stop in these areas is by banning all shooting activity for the following season in any area were known or suspected persecution has taken place
There's no chance of an identification in the supplied footage, so it's ok saying he was breaking the law, he was on private land, he was attempting to shoot Hen Harriers, ask the landowner who he was...etc
In all those comments ... WHO? Who was in the video? Who was carrying a firearm? Who was on private land? Who was attempting to shoot Hen Harriers using a decoy?
For all intents and purposes it could be absolutely anybody. We know what he was doing, it's obvious, but I'm afraid the reality is unless someone knows and namedrops him, he won't be caught.
The guy is trying to shoot a Harrier it's that simple, if hes a full time keeper there wont be any Crows around on the moor at this time of year he will have already larsen trapped them and shot any active nests out, you use decoys to attract a target species, there are plenty decoys available for crows this guy has a unique decoy, a Harrier decoy and surprisingly a Harrier had been recorded in the area a few days previous. This happened on National Trust land in a National park. Last year 5 male Harriers disappeared in Bowland in the last couple of months 4 Red Kites have been shot in the north east including the latest one off it's nest,
https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/red-kite-shot-killed-on-nest-in-west-yorkshire/
These Harriers and Kites should be spreading into our area but are not due to persecution from the shooting community, we should be able to watch these birds over local moors regularly but can't.
Whether you agree with it or not, managing land for game does have some small conservation benefit.
I disagree, the annual release of an estimated 40 million non native game birds cannot possibly be good, locally on my patch we lost Grey Partridge soon after the first release of Pheasants, how often has this been replicated across the country. there will always be winners and losers in nature whenever a change takes place, any winners as a consequence of a shooting estate are simply a by product of said activity and are not intentional.
Anyone who has not yet signed Mark Averys E-petition to ban driven Grouse shooting would you please consider doing so, would you also ask as many of your relatives and friends to do so as well, this won't get Grouse shooting banned but will at least hopefully put pressure on these estates to act within the law.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/125003
........................................................................................................
Glad you brought this up Craig as a lot of people seem to miss the point that the campaign is not to ban grouse shooting but "Driven Grouse" shooting as it calls for too intensive management.
When it first started it was considered unsporting by the old brigade who preferred "walked up game" using pointers and spaniels and a full day walking the moor.
A lot more sustainable.
I can't see this lot going back to that when they're now driven to the butts in Land Rovers and the land owner picking up £30,000+ per day for 6 guns.
Plenty of MPs with interests in grouse moors.
Sorry to sound pessimistic.
Roger.
PS. Definition of a Pessimist ....... An Optimist with experience of life !
-- Edited by Roger Baker 3 on Saturday 7th of May 2016 08:30:07 PM
Without wishing to sound argumentative, the question has to be what do you think he was doing then Jamie? I know/have known numerous people who shoot, and the only reason to be out with a gun and a decoy is to attract something you wish to shoot. Seeing as moors aren't renound for their wildfowl or wood pigeon numbers, and it's clearly not a crow, and it's clear from the associated story that the birders identified it as a hen harrier. So, I must admit to being at a loss as to what else this bloke might have been up to. I also understand he up and left as soon as he realised he was being watched just to add to the suspicious element.
I am definitely not an after banning all shooting, but raptor persecution is beyond a joke, and grouse moor management has intensified to a point where there are few benefits for many other species.
-- Edited by Craig Higson on Saturday 7th of May 2016 06:18:45 PM
-- Edited by Craig Higson on Saturday 7th of May 2016 07:40:21 PM
-- Edited by JamieDunning on Saturday 7th of May 2016 11:31:34 AM
The conservation benefits from upland burning to create artificially inflated red grouse populations must be infinitesimally small as I'm struggling to see them. See Walshaw Moor, above Hebden Bridge.
Regards, Chris J- B.
-- Edited by C Brown on Friday 6th of May 2016 10:49:32 PM
-- Edited by Ivan Ellison on Friday 6th of May 2016 10:30:19 PM
Couldn't agree more Jamie, but as the video 'appears' to point towards criminality, managing for all includes allowing am activity that has a criminal element involved that then impacts on other users. As I said above, I can understand why the police wont/cant do much with this, but certainly the PDNP must take some responsibility - its their land and they know who has permission to shoot on it. Simply stopping the lease for grouse shooting would stop this almost straight away - notwithstanding lowland shooting interests persecuting raptors as well of course.
I imagine the NT would argue that allowing shooting is a pragmatic response to managing uplands 'for everyone'.
http://markavery.info/2016/04/26/man-not-breaking-law/
http://markavery.info/2016/04/28/peak-district-raptor-lack-initiative/
...the police have apparently said they will take no further action on this matter. The landowner, the National Trust, has said they will investigate. One of the interesting points being made is why the National Trust allow shooting on their land in the first place. I wonder how many people realize it goes on. A concerted campaign to put pressure on the NT to do more for conservation would be interesting.
In this case, it is a bit frustrating because this guy is up to no good, but the burden of proof for criminal cases is stricter than that, and he could presumably produce a successful defence, which I think is Avery's point. I doubt anyone would grass him up either, so they might genuinely never find out who it was. But when you see prima facie evidence like this you want somebody to be held to account.
However, given that the only plausible purpose for this crime is to protect game birds, I'd have thought the police should at least interview the landowner possibly with a view to a search for the decoy
In future events, obviously it would be a risk to intervene. I don't trust anyone stupid enough to own or use a gun. However, in an extreme case it's worth remembering that the range of a shotgun is not very far, which is why he was sited just 10m from the decoy. I'm far from being an expert, but I don't think even a heavy bore shotgun could reach 100m - assuming you know it's not a rifle. A telescope or binoculars can see much further. Also, the offender has a car to be photographed.
He could have permission to be on and shoot on that land, he could even be the landowner. Unlikely, I know, but in theory true. So in the eye of the law, until the police can establish whether or not any of these supposed likely outcomes are true, maybe all of them, 1 of them, or maybe even none of them, then my point is what can they get their teeth into which was Ryan's main comment...nothing until either something happens that is the shooting of a Bird of Prey or if information is given to them that could possibly lead to incriminating circumstances for the individual concerned.
Think of it in this way...it's difficult to bring a charge or conviction to someone who obviously has intent to do something but hasn't actually done it yet, and you don't even know who it is because quite frankly the person in that particular image or footage in this case could be absolutely anyone.
I know it doesn't sound a good way of looking at it but in all honesty mate, you usually find that that is the reality of the situation, and in this case there are no hard facts it seems as yet to me, that could be used as permissible evidence for a prosecution. Only a few ifs, buts, and maybe's.
I hope I'm proved wrong for the bird's sake, the one that nobody has seen this individual kill yet.
Hmm.
Whilst the person in question hasn't (as far as we know) shot any protected birds of any species, he does appear to be armed. The law states that you must have permission to shoot on land that isn't your own. The law also states that you must have good reason for being on land without permission if you are carrying a a fire arm. So if you are walking along a main road with an air rifle/shotgun/ak47 - even if its in a case - and you can't explain where you are going, and that destination is not home, a gunsmiths, a shooting range, or land where you have permission you are committing an offence. In either case, it doesn't matter whether you are licensed or not! At least thats my understanding of the law.
So, whilst I agree that identifying the individual in question is probably impossible from this video, there are a few things that you would think the police and landowner could / should be doing. Firstly, if the bloke is not a ' poacher' (and why should he be? Most poachers are in it because they end up with something to eat/sell at the end of their illegal activities) then he must have permission to shoot over that land. Therefore, a good starting point you would think, would be for the police to have a word with all those who have permission (and I'm guessing the PDNP know who they are, or if not whatever syndicate has leased the shooting rights should know). You would also think that the PDNP would be taking the opportunity to review its leases. If its not someone with permission, then we have an armed man walking freely around a National Park, with no shooting permission, no good reason for being there, and actually participating in something that looks decidedly suspicious.
Apart from the obvious reasons to suspect its a local keeper, I suspect it will be someone with permission as it would be much easier to explain to the police that you were 'out shooting crows and here's my permission Mr policeman sir, no I wasnt shooting at anything I wasnt suppose to be' than it would to explain why you were walking across a public space with a 12 gauge shotgun. The first involves the police proving a negative, in the latter case you're nailed straight off.
So, I agree they won't be able to prosecute anyone, but there is a heck of a lot that could be done that could also result in something positive.
-- Edited by Craig Higson on Thursday 5th of May 2016 06:39:42 PM
-- Edited by Craig Higson on Thursday 5th of May 2016 06:40:57 PM
Secondly the quality of the images / video taken wouldn't lead to anyone being prosecuted as it would be virtually impossible to identify them from that video, so I may sound harsh but that is probably the reality of the situation.
Actually give the police something to get their teeth into...and they probably will.
You never know though, the National Trust may uncover something and you don't know what some country folk are like, they may know who he is or indeed who was likely to be in that area at that time, and his name may accidentally get mentioned. If a name did crop up, the police would possibly then pay a visit to the relavent property and hopefully discover incriminating evidence!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-36141199
Hopefully the NT investigation will have more teeth than the police response.