Convictions for White-tailed Eagle disturbance

[JeffH]

Originally Posted by RobinP

......The picture in the article shows an eagle looking quite alarmed at the close proximity of the photog.......Robin

No it doesn't - it shows a typically alert W-tE displaying no signs of alarm or disturbance whatsoever - exactly what a nesting bird photo should show

Originally Posted by dunlin

....The photo of the young eagle doesnt look stressed to me and could well have been taken from a nest camera or a long lens. I'm sure the relevent licences for photographing these birds arent given out to just anyone and strict criteria and guide lines would have to be adhered to

Exactly so dunlin and to liken Iain Erskine (as the official White-tailed Eagle photographer on the Isle of Mull) to the convicted criminals named in the article would be most unfair.

Originally Posted by Jersali

I am slightly surprised that these "photographers" were allowed to get near the nesting birds, they had already presented themselves as a risk!
With 15 pairs (2011) worth an estimated £5m to the island, I would have expected some measure of security, apparently authorities were alerted when witnesses reported distressed adults circling the nest area

Jersali, I know this nest site - it is high in a pine tree near the top of a densely wooded hillside overlooking Loch Na Keal and is clearly visible from the shores of the loch at the Killiechronan camp site several hundred metres away. I'm sure that its location will be well known by all the locals and indeed by most birders who visit Mull.

When I was last there in late Spring 2009 I visited the camp site several times and there were always a number of birders there watching the nest site (from a safe distance) and occasionally getting great views of the adult birds swooping down from the nest to catch fish in the loch below.

Indeed at that time there was a volunteer watcher permanently positioned at the camp site with a scope trained on the nest and, due to the site's prominent position, I believe that a succession of volunteers maintain a protective watch over the nest throughout the nesting season each year and I suspect it was one of these volunteer watchers who witnessed the disturbance in question and reported it to the Police and RSPB.

However, due to the density of the surrounding woodland the ground area around the nest site is not actually visible from the watch point and although the culprits had apparently already been warned off, Scotland's 'right to roam' laws make it difficult to do anything (other than give a warning) about anyone approaching a nest site without clear evidence of actual or intended "intentional or reckless disturbance".

So there is, in fact, fairly good security in the area and having visited Mull several times I would say that the locals, the Police and the RSPB staff on the island have achieved a pretty good balance between encouraging/allowing an enormous number of visitors to see their resident W-tEs whilst also protecting the birds.

Finally, I should add that this is the 2nd successful prosecution for W-tE nest disturbance on the island in recent years, so the 'Mull Eagle Watch' partnership between the local population and all the relevant organisations/authorities is proving quite effective.

I just wish the Courts would apply stiffer penalties to establish a greater deterrent to such illegal disturbance

Jeff
(Schedule 1 Licence holder for Kingfishers, Barn Owls and Avocets)

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by JeffH

I just wish the Courts would apply stiffer penalties to establish a greater deterrent to such illegal disturbance

As they don't aways give stiiffer penalties for other crimes, ones that the general public would always consider far more serious than photographers who might have caused disturbance (though the eagles may have successfully fledged young anyway), I really can't see much thought being put into whether or not fines for this sort of thing should be harsher.
I'm not saying that they should have got away with it, and I'm certainly not suggesting that it's OK to disturb any breeding birds - but how does the amount of the fine compare with those for other crimes. In my opinion there shouldn't be a monetary limit set on fines for any crime anyway, it should always be means tested, and set at a level that will 'hurt' (a £1000 fine for (eg) drink driving wouldn't be small change to the average person, but would be no deterrent to someone earning as much as a premiership footballer).

[JeffH]

Originally Posted by RoyW

As they don't aways give stiiffer penalties for other crimes, ones that the general public would always consider far more serious than photographers who might have caused disturbance (though the eagles may have successfully fledged young anyway), I really can't see much thought being put into whether or not fines for this sort of thing should be harsher.
I'm not saying that they should have got away with it, and I'm certainly not suggesting that it's OK to disturb any breeding birds - but how does the amount of the fine compare with those for other crimes. In my opinion there shouldn't be a monetary limit set on fines for any crime anyway, it should always be means tested, and set at a level that will 'hurt' (a £1000 fine for (eg) drink driving wouldn't be small change to the average person, but would be no deterrent to someone earning as much as a premiership footballer).

I'm in complete agreement with the points you make Roy. Personally and having seen many of the failures of our justice system at first hand, I think we've 'gone soft' on the whole issue of crime and punishment in this country and would have to admit to holding some fairly right-wing views on the matter - but that's a whole other subject and certainly not one I have any intention of debating on this thread (or indeed anywhere else on WAB)

Jeff
(Schedule 1 Licence holder for Kingfishers, Barn Owls and Avocets)

[Shrike]

Totally agree with Roy that fines should be means tested , however this country is already far too Right-Wing to even consider such a move.

[eeyore]

one also has to wonder about the photographers motivation - the market for nest shots of a WTE is pretty limited anyway , and pretty much cornered by the legit photographers who have much better opportunities.

IME the really saleable shots are of them catching fish and flight shots that capture the raw power of the bird - and these are relatively easy to obtain away from the nest.

so i'm guessing money wasnt the motivation, but if it was just 'because i can' you'd think being warned off by the rspb officer would cause them to think twice

[FUDGEY]

I also agree the fine is far to low, but considering the farmer I seen deliberately running over a Badger the other day only got a £400 fine it makes the Eagle fine look steep.

[JeffH]

Originally Posted by Shrike

Totally agree with Roy that fines should be means tested , however this country is already far too Right-Wing to even consider such a move.

Without wishing to get too bogged down in the legal issues arising from some of the ancillary (not to say misinformed ) points raised in this thread, I should point out that fines are, in fact, already means-tested!

In Scotland - where the offences took place - under section 211(7) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in determining the amount of any fine to be imposed the courts are obliged to take into account, amongst other things, the means of the offender so far as known to the court.
Anyone wanting more information on the subject may wish to refer to The Sentencing Commission for Scotland's 2006 Report entitled the "Basis on which Fines are Determined" - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/925/0116782.pdf

In England and Wales the courts are obliged to follow The Sentencing Guidelines Council's guidance - see here for Magistrates' Court Sentencing Guidlines - http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.g...2__3_4_web.pdf
- which include the following:-

"Approach to the assessment of fines
Introduction
1. The amount of a fine must reflect the seriousness of the offence.
2. The court must also take into account the financial circumstances of the offender; this applies whether it has the effect of increasing or reducing the fine. Normally a fine should be of an amount that is capable of being paid within 12 months.
3. The aim is for the fine to have an equal impact on offenders with different financial circumstances; it should be a hardship but should not force the offender below a reasonable ‘subsistence’ level.
4. The guidance below aims to establish a clear, consistent and principled approach to the assessment of fines that will apply fairly in the majority of cases. However, it is impossible to anticipate every situation that may be encountered and in each case the court will need to exercise its judgement to ensure that the fine properly reflects the seriousness of the offence and takes into account the financial circumstances of the offender".

But whether or not the current system of means-testing works effectively is open to question or, as one might say, the jury's still out on that

Jeff
(Schedule 1 Licence holder for Kingfishers, Barn Owls and Avocets)

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by JeffH

Without wishing to get too bogged down in the legal issues arising from some of the ancillary (not to say misinformed ) points raised in this thread, I should point out that fines are, in fact, already means-tested!

In Scotland - where the offences took place - under section 211(7) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in determining the amount of any fine to be imposed the courts are obliged to take into account, amongst other things, the means of the offender so far as known to the court.
Anyone wanting more information on the subject may wish to refer to The Sentencing Commission for Scotland's 2006 Report entitled the "Basis on which Fines are Determined" - http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/925/0116782.pdf

In England and Wales the courts are obliged to follow The Sentencing Guidelines Council's guidance - see here for Magistrates' Court Sentencing Guidlines - http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.g...2__3_4_web.pdf
- which include the following:-

"Approach to the assessment of fines
Introduction
1. The amount of a fine must reflect the seriousness of the offence.
2. The court must also take into account the financial circumstances of the offender; this applies whether it has the effect of increasing or reducing the fine. Normally a fine should be of an amount that is capable of being paid within 12 months.
3. The aim is for the fine to have an equal impact on offenders with different financial circumstances; it should be a hardship but should not force the offender below a reasonable ‘subsistence’ level.
4. The guidance below aims to establish a clear, consistent and principled approach to the assessment of fines that will apply fairly in the majority of cases. However, it is impossible to anticipate every situation that may be encountered and in each case the court will need to exercise its judgement to ensure that the fine properly reflects the seriousness of the offence and takes into account the financial circumstances of the offender".

But whether or not the current system of means-testing works effectively is open to question or, as one might say, the jury's still out on that

Jeff
(Schedule 1 Licence holder for Kingfishers, Barn Owls and Avocets)

so to sum up ; it's up to the judge

[JeffH]

Originally Posted by Shrike

so to sum up ; it's up to the judge

Yes - provided he follows the already existing means testing guidelines (and even if he is right wing )

Jeff
(Schedule 1 Licence holder for Kingfishers, Barn Owls and Avocets)

[Shrike]

Originally Posted by JeffH

Yes - provided he follows the already existing means testing guidelines (and even if he is right wing )

Jeff
(Schedule 1 Licence holder for Kingfishers, Barn Owls and Avocets)

Reminds me of the case where a millionaire play boy was in court for speeding in his sports car and was fined £200 , following this case a jobbing builder was up for speeding and lost his license for 2 years. He looked exasperatingly at the judge and remarked "beam me up scotty no intelligent life down here "
So the judge gave him 6 months.