Natural England approved the licences - and defended their decision.
Public outraged and demand more involvement in decision making. As part of my ongoing research into the activities of Natural England, earlier this week I revealed on my blog that the government sponsored agency had issued licences to cull Coots in a park due to fear that their droppings could pose a risk to public health and safety. I had asked Natural England for an explanation of one of their typical 'lethal control' licences and I selected Coots as an example because they are a harmless bird, but also one that appears on Natural England's 'kill list' in huge numbers. At first the agency denied that Coots were killed at all ("unless a bird is injured"), so I sent them an example of a kill licence taken from their own data. I received an apology, saying that they had 'overlooked' that licence (though it was only one of many Coot kill licences that they had issued) but it was their 'explanation' that caused so much consternation among readers of my blog, who were furious. Widespread Condemnation Of The Cull There was an outpouring of condemnation from readers, and rightly so. Coots are inoffensive birds and people are outraged that they are being killed for such an apparently spurious reason. Natural England justified their decision to grant the licence by saying "Our site visit and technical assessment of the initial application found that coot in excess of 200 were causing a risk to public health and safety in and around a lake at a park visited by large numbers of the public throughout the year (via fouling of those public areas)." But that didn't sit well with my readers who expected more decency from a government agency apparently tasked with protecting nature. Indeed, one reader suggested that those in charge of such decisions might be "educated beyond the bounds of common sense". Whether or not that is the case, one has to wonder at the logic behind culling birds for defecating in a public park. Many people pointed out that human visitors to the park, which is believed to be in Norfolk, pose a greater 'risk' to public health than bird poop might. "I wonder how much litter / trash / dog waste was left by those members of the public?" asked one, "Coots do not leave rubbish lying around..." added another. Public Want More Involvement In Decision Making A number of people have suggested that, in cases like this, notices should be displayed prior to a cull taking place, to alert the public and importantly to allow any objections to be raised, very similar to the process involved in planning applications, where public notices are obligatory prior to a final decision being made. One reader said it would be a "great idea to put up notices regarding impending culls. There's far too much secrecy in things like this, and a public that's kept in the dark has no chance to voice an opinion." This is something I raised with Natural England's Director of Operations, James Diamond, during our discussions in April. I maintained that it would be in everybody's interest, not least that of the wildlife, that where possible, details of an application should be published ahead of a licence being granted (including the applicant's name, especially when this is a local council or other public body). He was adamant that no such plan would be considered. "we must protect peoples' right to privacy and confidentiality" he told me. In spite of this, he was very keen to point out that there is "no culture of secrecy" behind the doors of the agency. This seems to be a contradiction. The very fact that currently the only way to obtain licence data is to apply through a Freedom of Information request alludes to a culture that isn't exactly transparent. More Transparency Would Not Deter Genuine Applications This refusal to make public the details of applications prior to them being granted remains a major focus of our petition, now at 330,000 signatures. I believe that publishing the details of applicants will have two main benefits. It will allow a concerned public to offer an opinion on whether the licence should be issued (and to put forward any objections). It will also deter any applications from those who might not be acting in the best interests of the wildlife or the public... having their names published should not deter honest applicants with a genuine reason to request a licence. And surely the public have a right to object. They would not, for example, have agreed to the killing of Coots in a public park. Questions Over So Many Licences So far, as a direct result of our campaigning, Natural England have promised to publish details of every single licence that they issue annually - but only after the licences have already been issued. So there is much work still to do. I think we had all hoped that Natural England would be issuing lethal control licences only when absolutely necessary and in cases where there really was no possible alternative. Their approval of shooting Coots for defecating in a park proves that this is not the case. And it raises so many questions about the other 5,000 or so licences that the agency issues every year. We are losing our native birds at an alarming rate - and the agency set up to "to protect England’s nature" seems to be complicit in their decline.
6 Comments
Tracey Weaver
1/6/2019 05:09:22 pm
So how then do we have access to Wildfowl and Wetlands trust sites, if some ridiculous govt agency thinks that bird poo is dangerous? This us proposterous. Aling with killing foxes and hares too. What are we coming too?
Reply
1/6/2019 06:41:17 pm
How utterly ridiculous, the "Natural England" bureacrats who authorised this particular licence are beneath contempt, totally out of touch with the natural world, and form of reality at all, and with public opinion. Presumably they are unable to comprehend that out native wildlife could be seen as an asset, and education and a treasure for all to enjoy - and what gives them the right to unilaterally decide to destroy them? What a worthless name "Natural England", sold out to money making autocrats...
Reply
Tim
7/6/2019 05:40:19 pm
If coot poo is so lethal to humans, how come we have survived into 2019? Also, every park I have ever been to poses a greater threat to human health because of what the humans are doing there not the wildlife!
Reply
Vicky Hargreaves
14/6/2019 09:32:15 pm
Where do the RSPB stand on all of this? Are they so much part of the establishment that they don't like to take a stand against this ridiculous slaughter.
Reply
Paul Castle
15/6/2019 09:25:35 am
Fairly obvious that whoever is in control of natural England hates wildlife of all kinds and I am wondering why the public have not heard of this outrage before now ? This is so alarmingly insane that it seems almost like a hoax .
Reply
Tim Burke
16/6/2019 03:08:46 pm
This public health thing seems spurious. I recently read (sorry, can't remember where) that NHS data suggests that there has never been a hospital admission arising from wild bird poo.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
If you appreciate what I write about, please consider showing your support by buying me a virtual coffee!
Click the button below! Thanks :) Archives
July 2023
|