Alasdair Mitchell, who helps the NGO with its PR, writes:

According to the Glasgow Herald, one of Scotland's top sheriffs has caused outrage among certain folk (among them, the paper's environment editor) by telling one of them, who was wingeing about soft sentences for wildlife crime, to "get a life".  Oo-er.

Reportedly, sheriff Kevin Drummond told a conference on wildlife crime that offences against animals ranked far behind serious crimes such as robbery and assault.  This somewhat undiplomatic pointing out of the bleedin' obvious went down like a bucket of cold vomit. 

Now there are shrill demands that the sheriff be sacked from the Scottish version of Partnership for Action Against Crime (PAW).  A Very Important Personage called "Dr" Ruth Tingay (they do love their titles, don't they?) from the Lothian and Border Raptor Study Group, was "utterly astounded" at the sheriff's comments, and told the Herald:  "In my view, as long as Sheriff Drummond remains in post, the credibility of PAW Scotland is non-existent."

Ms Tingay is supported by Ronnie Graham, from the Dumfries and Galloway Raptor Study Group. He reportedly said: "I personally feel that this outburst and admission of the low priority in which he class illegal raptor poisoning casts serious doubts over Sherrif Drummond's suitability to sit on this group or be involved in PAW in any capacity".

Hell hath no fury like a raptorphile scorned, it seems.

Now, whisper it softly, but I have some sympathy for Sherriff Drummond.  I am no apologist for wildlife crime but, as far as I can tell, he was simply telling it like it is.  He was pointing out that it is already difficult enough to get hard sentences for crimes like robbery, so raptor activists are deluding themselves it they think there is a realistic chance of getting the death penalty for dissing a buzzard. This doesn't mean that raptor persecution (or poaching, for that matter) isn't a serious matter - it's just that society thinks rape, murder, armed robbery, mass genocide, etc are a tad more serious.

The tragedy of the whole debate about raptors is that those who have the courage to point out some uncomfortable truths are treated like holocaust deniers.   How can we ever reach agreement on a healthy future for raptors, game and other wildlife when inconvenient facts are derided for being politically incorrect?

As for wildlife crime in general, since when did self-appointed amateur raptor fanatics have a monopoly on allocating police resources? 

PAW is meant to be a partnership - not a cozy club of like-minded fanatics.