Forest sell-off

[pda15]

Perhaps I can help to clear a couple of points up.

Poaching is NOT a wildlife crime. It is a property crime against game and deer (neither of which is defined as wildlife).

Wildlife crime is that crime which is perpetrated against wildlife (ie creatures that are naturally found in the wild in the various jurisdictions of the UK).

I think the statistics that Lyn is quoting are those from the NWCU solely for wildlife crime rather than those that include poaching, CITES, animal welfare etc etc

With regards to a previous comment on convictions such statistics do NOT include police warnings, cautions, fiscal's letters, absolute discharges, bindings over etc etc which probably account for the vast majority of resolved offences.

We in Scotland had a fairly long consultation process and decided not to sell off our state owned forestry. I wish the English the best of luck in their consultations.

Just one final point. I think that Lyn is to be congratulated for making her points so firmly in the face of considerable opposition.

Well done Lyn.

[STYRBJORN]

Originally Posted by RoyW

If you are happy to accept NWCU figures (and I still can't find the statistics you have quoted btw), then perhaps you will also accept their opinion that poaching is a wildlife crime - it is mentioned in both the 2009 and 2010 NWCU annual reports.

It's also a crime that I would have thought is probably more likely to occur in woodland with public access (although I don't doubt that poachers wouldn't hesitate to trespass on privately owned land if they needed to).

Poaching might, I suppose, be regarded as a crime against wildlife. It is not a "wildlife crime." A person indicted for poaching may be prosecuted under property legislation, criminal trespass legislation, behaviour liable to cause . . I try to avoid this subject, but I shoot rabbits and game birds. I do so on land where I have written permission from the landowner/leaseholder. If someone lacking such permission were to take similar quarry on that same land, he or she would be poaching. Apparently I must repeat myself. Poaching is theft. It is not a "wildlife crime" in British law and anyone who so describes it needs a reality check, regardless of how many capital letters they use in their annual reports.

[RoyW]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

Poaching is theft. It is not a "wildlife crime" in British law and anyone who so describes it needs a reality check, regardless of how many capital letters they use in their annual reports.

But as poaching is considered to be a wildlife crime by the National Wildlife Crime Unit, I stand by my point that someone who is happy to accept NWCU crime statistics (all be it "statistics" that are as yet unsupported by reference to a source), also needs to accept the NWCU's definition of what is/is not a 'wildlife crime'.

Originally Posted by pda15

I think the statistics that Lyn is quoting are those from the NWCU solely for wildlife crime rather than those that include poaching, CITES, animal welfare etc etc

With regards to a previous comment on convictions such statistics do NOT include police warnings, cautions, fiscal's letters, absolute discharges, bindings over etc etc which probably account for the vast majority of resolved offences.

So why not provide details of where these 'statistics' actually come from (it desn't really matter whether you post this as pda15/Lyn H/Mammalrecorder)?

[STYRBJORN]

Fair comment Roy. I regard any statistics published by any governmental or pseudo-governmental body as meriting close inspection, on the assumption that they are overwhelmingly likely to be wrong. When they can't even get their legal definitions correct they deserve to be treated with disdain. Frankly, to describe poaching as a "wildlife crime" is plain stupid.

OECD. poach.2. illegally hunt or catch (game or fish) on land that is not one's own.

I add "and without permission from the landowner."

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by RoyW

But as poaching is considered to be a wildlife crime by the National Wildlife Crime Unit, I stand by my point that someone who is happy to accept NWCU crime statistics (all be it "statistics" that are as yet unsupported by reference to a source), also needs to accept the NWCU's definition of what is/is not a 'wildlife crime'.

quite - and poaching is a wildlife crime , and deer are wildlife as are hares ,rabbits, pigeons (and pheasants etc if they are wild not captive release) - sure poachers are also commiting other offences under the firearms acts, the theft acts, agravated trespass etc but they are commiting a wildlife crime under WCA 1981 / CRoW 2000 if they are taking birds or wildlife listed on the game schedules because the permissions of the various licences only provide that such species may be taken by authorised persons - ergo as a poacher is not an authorised person he is guilty of an offence under these acts

Originally Posted by RoyW

So why not provide details of where these 'statistics' actually come from (it desn't really matter whether you post this as pda15/Lyn H/Mammalrecorder)?

probably because writing "we made them up" doesnt do a lot for their argument - ive now read both reports cover to cover and the dubious statistics are not in either one - strange that

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by pda15

Perhaps I can help to clear a couple of points up.

Poaching is NOT a wildlife crime. It is a property crime against game and deer (neither of which is defined as wildlife).

Wildlife crime is that crime which is perpetrated against wildlife (ie creatures that are naturally found in the wild in the various jurisdictions of the UK).

so are you saying that deer are not naturally occuring in the uk ?

and also if they are not "defined as wildlife" why are fallow, roe and red deer listed in the wildlife and countryside acts and subsequent legislation (sika and muntjac are listed as non native species under sched 9)

[The Woodman]

Originally Posted by STYRBJORN

Property crime. If firearms are used criminal trespass. How could poaching rabbits be a wild life crime when they may be killed legally? In law, a wild animal is the property of the person on whose land it lives. Poaching is theft.

Poaching crayfish for the pot is prosecuted under the W&C Act and EA byelaws , snaring salmon under S1 of the SAFF Act for example.

Amateur semantics. To me it's crime involving wildlife. It may be theft in certain instances and therefore prosecutable under the Theft Act Sch1 but it still involves wildlife.

pda's comment stands for me -
"Wildlife crime is that crime which is perpetrated against wildlife (ie creatures that are naturally found in the wild in the various jurisdictions of the UK)."

Frankly, to describe poaching as a "wildlife crime" is plain stupid OK - your view, but it's at odds with mine about a generalised description.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by The Woodman

Poaching crayfish for the pot is prosecuted under the W&C Act and EA byelaws , snaring salmon under S1 of the SAFF Act for example.

Amateur semantics. To me it's crime involving wildlife. It may be theft in certain instances and therefore prosecutable under the Theft Act Sch1 but it still involves wildlife.

pda's comment stands for me -
"Wildlife crime is that crime which is perpetrated against wildlife (ie creatures that are naturally found in the wild in the various jurisdictions of the UK)."

Frankly, to describe poaching as a "wildlife crime" is plain stupid OK - your view, but it's at odds with mine about a generalised description.

indeed - also "wildlife crimes" are often prosecuted under other legislation because the probabilities of conviction are higher and the penalties more severe.

for example (hypothetically) if someone shoots a peregrine but in doing so fires across a road then while they are defintely guilty of a wildlife crime (ie killing a protected bird), they are also guilty of offences under the firearms act (discharging a firearm across a highway) and if the road were in use at the time a case could also be made for reckless endangerment of life. If they had no permission to be on the land they fired from then they are also guilty of both agravated trespass and armed trespass

if found guilty killing a protected bird is usually a slap on the wrist and a few hundred pound fine - but offences under the firearms act will result in the lifting of FACs and far higher fines, while both reckless endangerment, and armed trespass usually result in very high fines or custodial sentencing

likewise if a poacher takes a deer then he does commit a wildlife crime - but he also commits offences under the theft act, and quite probably under the firearms act (and armed trespass again) - and he is most likely to be prosecuted for the latter because the penalties are far higher - but this doesnt mean that poaching is not a wildlife crime per se

[STYRBJORN]

I surrender! For reasons I need not belabour I am more concerned with the practical aspects.

Ric

[eeyore]

twerent getting at you ric, my response was more to the (now rather cold) pda15/lynH/mammalrecorder as he/she/it seems convinced that deer are not wildlife