A nasty individual (not the beaver)

One of the earliest beavers trapped in Tayside

I saw the other day a BBC news article from away back in October 2016 which read,

‘A landowner has put a £1,000 bounty on the heads of beavers he claims are felling trees on his estate’.

Briefly the landowner was complaining that there were beavers on his land and that they were felling trees. The article claimed he put up posters on his land stating,

Beaver sightings! At Woodlands Castle. Wanted dead or alive. £1,000 reward! For crimes against trees. Beavers have been cutting down our trees!

A beaver expert visited the estate and disputed that the trees had been felled by beavers.

The point is that even in mid-2017 there is no legislation as yet in any part of the UK that gives beavers protection from being shot. They have by and large been accepted by the Scottish Government as part of the fauna in Scotland and there has been at least one authorised release of beavers to the wild in England.

I tweeted in response to the article,

Beavers need legal protection as a matter of urgency

Various studies have shown that beavers can increase biodiversity by creating wetlands, can slow water flow, reducing flood risk downstream, have little negative effect on migratory fish travelling upstream and are vegetarian (see for instance Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/19/eager-beavers-experts-at-recreating-wildlife-rich-wetlands-study-reveals?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Tweet )

It is accepted that in some cases there may be a downside to farming if they burrow through flood banks or flatten parts of crops. None of this should negatively affect gamekeepers but some have to stick in their tuppence-worth if there is any possibility that they might be able to kill a creature.  However this is all by way of introduction.

An ex-gamekeeper clearly took exception to my support for beavers. He hides on social media under the pseudonym of Rural Voice (@voice_rural) and claims to be,

Ex headkeeper now conservationist looking to protect rural workers jobs & lifestyles.

In five consecutive tweets directed to me he asked,

Is that why no prosecutions were made under your watch against Bamff estate?

Whilst you’re here Alan. Did you ever have problems with buzzard whilst trapping rabbits when you was a full time cop? Salt & pepper?

Come on @WildlifeBlog don’t be twitchy did you have problems with buzzards? Did you take DNA samples from Bamff beavers? Open up. Tell truth

Simple yes or no will be ok. Yer reputation is on the line here.

We don’t want to add you to bent cop who facilitated beaver release in Tayside do we. Tell us exactly your position.

These are too many questions or claims to answer on Twitter; much better for a response on my blog. I have nothing to hide and I will treat it as a poor attempt to blackmail me into giving up my support of environmental issues and condemnation of wildlife crime.

That the beavers originated from Bamff Estate is a statement from him, without evidence, that the beavers in the Tay catchment came from this estate near Alyth which was one of three locations in Perthshire where there are or were captive beavers. That is an issue of civil litigation that Bamff Estate might like to take up. I’m not going to elaborate on my thoughts on where the Tay beavers originated but along with one of the part-time wildlife crime officers from the former Tayside Police we made an extensive investigation, liaised with the specialist wildlife crime prosecutor at Perth and submitted a case to her against an individual charged with unlawfully releasing or allowing beavers to escape in to the wild. She made the decision that because of the wording in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 the case would not prove. Amendments introduced through the Wildlife and Natural Environment (Scotland) Act addressed these issues and had the same case been submitted subsequent to the 2011 Act the outcome would have been different.

No DNA was taken during the investigation. This approach was considered and we would have attempted it (with some difficulty) if the fiscal had considered it would help the case, but the stumbling block was always going to be the wording of the legislation.

This answers the other beaver-related points and is a classic example of how a police officer (or in my case at the time, a member of support staff) must work within the wording of the law; despite the fact that I was pleased to see beavers back in the wild in Scotland again it was our duty to investigate the possibility – even probability – that they had been deliberately allowed to escape or in fact released.

Rural Voice makes reference to rabbit trapping which I carried out in the 1970 and early 1980s. I’m puzzled as to why someone catching rabbits would have any problem with buzzards, but I see where this has come from. His reference to ‘salt and pepper’ is an inference to the use of pesticides on a bait. In 2015 I was at a meeting which was also attended by Alex Hogg, chair of the Scottish Gamekeepers’ Association. Hogg approached me and claimed he had been told by another gamekeeper (surprise surprise) that years ago I had used pesticides on baits. I forget what he claimed the baits were for but he threatened that I should ‘watch this space’, an inference that he would make this public. Since this was total nonsense I challenged him to go ahead which, at realisation of the risk of being sued, he never did.

So Rural Voice claims to be a conservationist. I see little on his Twitter account that shows this. It is full of hate against those who support almost any form of conservation or who speak up against wildlife crime committed on shooting estates. His tirade against me, especially the use of the term ‘bent cop’ (even though I don’t understand the context in his tweet) confirms to me he is a bitter and nasty individual and doubt very much if he is the voice speaking on behalf of very many in the rural community. If he thought I wouldn’t respond I will go even a stage further and include the contents of this blog in my next book, A National Disgrace: wildlife crime in the UK, due for publication later this year.

I met a really friendly and competent gamekeeper just yesterday which thankfully reminded me to keep my views on gamekeepers in perspective. They are not all the same.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to A nasty individual (not the beaver)

  1. Jeff P says:

    Rural Voice is Andy Richardson

  2. Key says:

    You may be interested to know, his previous Twitter bio read:

    Ex headkeeper, dislikes Greens, Vegans, Raptorphiles, Bird Botherers, scientists and anyone who threatens rural workers jobs & lifestyles.

    • Many thanks. I’ll do a bit more background research tomorrow for my book. Lots of tweets about how vile a character he is, including from at least one fellow gamekeeper. Seems a real misfit as a human being and his rants do gamekeepers no good whatsoever.

  3. Jo (@jw4926) says:

    He has many issues …… a sad lonely old man, I think, living in his imagined past …….

  4. Iain C says:

    These might be interesting background reading (including the comments e.g. SteveC’s): https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2016/08/04/intimidation/

    https://raptorpersecutionscotland.wordpress.com/2016/07/27/bowland-brewery-subjected-to-hate-campaign-for-supporting-hen-harriers/

    You say “doubt very much if he is the voice speaking on behalf of very many in the rural community” but he has many of the hunting and shooting set as friends, including Bert Burnett, a representative of the SGA.

  5. Dave J says:

    The fact that this vindictive and dangerous individual presumably owns a shotgun should be of concern to Police Scotland.

  6. Billy B says:

    While some of us (including myself) like to see once extinct native species being restored, one has to be concerned at the way it seems to be happening; i.e. with no oversight and no screening of the condition of the animals being introduced or their source (have they been screened for diseases for example) and most contentiously without consultation with those on who they may impact. It’s understandable if some people react badly to this, even if many of their concerns are misplaced.

    Most people who are familiar with the Tayside beavers and their history rightly or wrongly seem fairly certain of the origin of most of them. However many of those people don’t seem to realise that it’s often not possible to prosecute on the basis of being ‘fairly certain’, as that small element of doubt is likely to result in a failed prosecution and associated waste of public resources. Anyone releasing beavers would almost certainly cover their tracks making it very difficult to find complete evidence, so I sympathise with anyone tasked with finding out beyond reasonable doubt what actually happened.

    I often wonder about how so many beavers got so well distributed across the catchment in a relatively short time. I also wonder, given how well beavers apparently breed in captivity, where on earth all the youngsters produced in some beaver collections in the past 15 years are….. it’s a mystery!
    There seem to be current concerns that the same mysterious appearances could be happening with wild boar in the same area? And what could be next to show up, Wolves? Lynx? Brown bears?….. Unicorns? (well aything could be possible since they seem to teleport in magically!) Guess we’ll see….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s