Mmmm, a few interesting comments.
"the gamekeeper is just an employee and is merely acting on behalf of "traditionalist" estate landowners still living in Victorian times. These estates are still run with the view that raptors are vermin and the keeper is expected to do his job"
In the second half of the 19th centuary, some estates actually paid keepers extra, at Christmas, for the various raptors that were breeding on the estates. They were classed as natural health indicators. It was only when the money from shooting came along, and subsequent numbers of prey species dropped, that attitude changed against the raptors etc which were then seen to be in conflict with the potential earnings of the said estates.
"I think the hills we visited in Northumberland could hold a few hen harriers without them doing massive harm to the game birds"
There are numerous parts of the U.K. which could hold raptors, but the birds do not breed there. In these instances, this is nothing to do with gamekeepers, but with habitat choice of the raptor species.
"(and foxhunting is a none starter there, as the foxes are exterminated as vermin)."
There is an estate in the North East of Scotland. Part of this estate was handed over to a national trust. One of the first things to go were the keepers. The explosion of the fox population led to the creation of a "wildlife wilderness" within the estate boundaries. The neighbouring estates were then effected by the overspill of the foxes. We watched 2 Foxes on Christmas day trying to catch a sheep. It was like a cowboy wagon-train being surrounded by a pair of emaciated Indians. In the end, one of the Foxes was shot by the keeper. Considering the condition it was in, realistically, it was for the better. A major nature reserve in the North East also had to initiate a major Fox cull, due to overwhelming numbers, and the damage they were doing.
"Solicitor Mark Harrower said: "He felt he was doing his job, but in no way was he asked by the estate to do this.""
No estate manager or owner would admit to knowing what was going on, if it was financially detremental to the said estate. They then would also be liable, so neither party is going to admit collusion.
"Tis true I'm afraid that the RSPB is sometimes also seen as an 'English' organisation imposing its will on the provinces. Happily, attitudes are changing"
Interesting comment. I took note of a piece in the media, (August 2004) regarding the RSPB being one of the largest independant landowners in Scotland, but being an English based charity. It would now seem that questions are now being asked in Edinburgh with reference to what Scotland actually gets out of the RSPB owning so much tracts of land here.
Returning to the fine imposed on the keeper. Can anyone actually put forward a viable solution to the problem of raptor -vs- certain sporting estates. I would think not. This has, and will go on, as long as money, and estate viability is involved.
Do you license everyone, as in car drivers. Have a points system. For every sucessfull prosecution, there is a points endorsement. Certain number of points, loss of license to practice keepering or land management. Ban estates from having shoots for a certain number of years.
Can you really se that happeneing.
Me thinks not.
Just look at who owns said estates.
And what about the estates which are capable, on the face of it, but do not hold certain raprors. How can you force them to have certain breeding birds of prey, if the birds do not naturally wish to be there. Fine them also??
Conflict will always exist. It's in man's nature.
Malky.
) either because the society remit was not really towards researching helpful farming techniques but it has. Many of the initiatives that are now being put forward started life in Cambridgeshire and were promoted in Westminster by Lodge personnel. The RSPB has rarely been credited with this but who cares? The aim is conservation of our declining birds and it does not matter about credit at the end of the day. 
