When wildlife crime is mentioned in professional circles, it appears that CITIES is the only subject that is extensively quoted.
For those of us involved in preventing wildlife crime in any form, it can be frustrating that what we are trying to achieve is sometimes classed as second-rate or indeed less important.
I am not trying to infer that CITIES is not an important subject or indeed a problem that needs to be tackled.
On more than one occasion I have heard ” experts” state that preventing wildlife crime not associated with CITIES is low level importance.
I have no doubt in my mind that what we deal with as a company is indeed low level wildlife crime; to suggest that it is of second rate importance not only undermines our efforts but it also suggests that wildlife crimes can be tolerated or indeed regarded as acceptable.
Wildlife laws are in place to protect flora and fauna, and although they seem antiquated and confusing it is our job as professionals to assist our clients and others to work within the guidelines.
Some may think that what we do is low level and of no importance however we, as a company, strive to prevent wildlife crime on ANY level and will continue to do so.