James D Brown (Letters, 14 November) accuses me of being "irrational" in wanting more severe penalties for estates found guilty of illegal killing of raptors. What exactly is "irrational" about wanting the law to be upheld and law-breakers to be punished in a way which will deter them and others from continuing to break the law? I hold the same view for all forms of law-breaking – the punishment must be sufficiently severe to discourage reoffending and deter others.
I would suggest the "irrationality" is all on Mr Brown's side. The chickens we take from the supermarket shelves have been reared specifically for human consumption, and the farming and marketing is a completely legal activity. To equate these with r
aptors, especially rare and endangered species, which are protected by law seems to me to be the "irrational" argument. The raptors are protected by law because they are rare, largely due to human persecution, but also partly because there is a large body of public opinion in favour of their protection as "iconic" species.
DOUGLAS HAMILTON
Glenburn
Lamlash, Isle of ArranJames D Brown correctly states that raptors and chickens are both birds, but that exhausts the logic of his position.
The reason for killing is the crux of the matter. We don't find hawks or eagles on supermarket shelves. His case might gain merit if the purpose of poisoning was to protect the prey, but this protection is only to allow humans to kill it instead and for estate owners to make money from shooters.
ROBERT DOW
Ormiston Road
Tranent, East LothianThe full article contains 266 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
