As I continue to assess the data surrounding Natural England's bird licences, I'm constantly wondering about the legalities of the whole process. As the recent legal challenge to some of their general licences clearly illustrated, we cannot be certain that any system, even at government level, is sound and watertight.
Legal Concerns...? Legal questions might be beyond the scope of our current petition, but during the discussions I had last month with Natural England's Director of Operations, James Diamond, I asked some pertinent questions. One of my main concerns was, and remains, the monitoring of the licences that they issue. As I understand it, applicants in possession of bird kill licences are obliged to report back to Natural England within a specified time frame, detailing the outcome of the licence that they were granted. They must stipulate just how many birds were finally killed (or not killed) under their licence. But what happens if an applicant fails to do so? This worried me, so I asked Mr Diamond about the follow-up process. I had assumed that there would be rigorous monitoring in place to confirm that the licensee had acted lawfully and responsibly within the parameters of the licence. Surprisingly, I was told that Natural England rely on the 'good practice' of the licensee in carrying out the actions of the licence and reporting back with the results. "We continue to chase them", said Mr Diamond, but there is "no fine" if they don't report back. The only punishment for non reporting is that they are unlikely to be granted another licence should they ever apply for one. Well, this seems entirely unacceptable, given that in theory someone who has applied for a licence to shoot, say, a dozen Heron might have shot hundreds. It would be lovely if we could rely on everyone's integrity - but obviously some people might have less than honest reasons for wanting to exterminate a bird that they consider to be a pest or a problem. 'Five Test' System No Guarantee Of Compliance Natural England are always keen to point out that they have a strict 'five test' system in place before applicants are granted a licence. For example, the applicant must satisfy the agency that non-lethal alternatives have been attempted to control birds before a kill licence will be granted. But once the licence is issued, then it appears to be largely down to the applicant to carry out the extermination responsibly. This system seems to leave too many opportunities for the applicant to misuse the licence, whether it be mistakenly killing the wrong species (not everybody is an ornithologist) or simply killing more birds than were permitted under the licence. In spite of the agency 'chasing up' licensees for final figures, the lack of a penalty or proper punishment for neglecting to provide the information means that, while many licensees are no doubt honest and responsible, there is limited pressure on less honorable applicants to report back with figures, the result being that nobody really knows how many birds have ultimately been killed. This renders the figures unreliable. Not Enough Monitoring? Some monitoring clearly does take place. During my discussions with Mr Diamond, I asked specifically about the licences issued to kill legally protected Ravens and he assured me that all of the people who were granted licences to kill Ravens were visited in person. But that is just one example for which a limited number of licences were issued. Up to 6,000 licence applications are received by the agency each year (for all animals, not just birds), so it would seem impractical for Natural England to personally oversee each of them. I should point out that not all of these applications are for 'lethal control' (some might be for egg oiling, nest destruction etc.) and between 10% and 20% of licence applications are refused. But that still leaves a huge number of lethal control licences and, of those that are granted to kill birds, how many are fully monitored? Ongoing Dialogue But Slow Progress My dialogue with Natural England is ongoing, though I'm making slow headway in interpreting their ambiguous data. For example, after Natural England told me that licences were only granted to shoot Coots in cases 'where a bird has been injured', I pointed out to them that the agency had in fact issued several lethal control licences to kill hundreds of these birds. They are looking into this for me and I'll update when I have a response. None of this inspires confidence. Surely it's now time for a complete overhaul of the whole licencing system....?
36 Comments
Jeanette Morgan
22/5/2019 02:50:38 pm
I find the subject very interesting as knowing people (must of our neighbours & quite a few of our friends) they like to
Reply
stuart fernie
22/5/2019 03:15:08 pm
Jeanette, allowing a pheasant shoot is fine but not great. Pheasants cause severe habitat destruction and eat food that other wildlife need. Better to get rid of all the pheasants and let wildlife live in your woodland. Regarding control of any wildlife/invasive species - I agree with you that some people use it as an excuse but it really is 100% necessary in many, many cases. Deer populations, for example must be managed because we killed off all their predators and took over most of their habitat. If deer populations are not controlled woodlands are devastated and the deer become diseased and stressed due to overpopulation, eventually the entire group of deer could cease to exist in that particular place. So we select the “right” deer and kill them for the good of the group and the woodland. This petition is great and we do need to make sure licenses are properly issued and monitored, we should be very careful not to go too far though because otherwise we will be ignored or bundled in with people that believe no control is necessary at all. This petition is not to stop the lethal control of wild birds all together, it is to control the way in which it is done - this must be clear. As you rightly say any imbalances are caused by Human activity in one way or another so we have a responsibility to repair the damage if we can, it is difficult to get it right (we are still removing rhododendrons as “invasive” and in my opinion we need to think about if we should stop that because of climate change, for example). Many areas of conservation methodology need an “overhaul” but the key is clear and concise discussion throughout. Nature can take its balance in many cases but Himalayan balsam will take over entire nature reserves if we don’t interfere by pulling it up every year, for example.
Reply
22/5/2019 04:47:15 pm
Stuart, yours is one of the best comments I have read on this subject. It is always distressing when animals have to be culled, but as you say, it is us, humans, who have caused the need in the first place. I volunteer with the RSPB and around this time of the year I am always being asked why we do not do something about the herring gulls taking goslings, ducklings etc, The answer is that is how nature works. If we got rid of the gulls who would control the other waer fowl? Removal of natural predators is what causes the need for culls, though other methods should be explored first before the issue of any licences to cull. Ideally, the only need to hunt would be for survival, and no other reason (and this includes the "Hurrah Henry's" and their grouse shoots for so called pleasure)
Jeanette
22/5/2019 08:49:47 pm
I actually agree - maybe I did not explain myself very well. I agree that controlled and valid control is needed as we no longer have wolves etc my point is it has to be valid not because it makes way for the shoot or to pop shot at foxes under the pretence of protecting hens (that should be housed and protected as mine are). It is just that unless the research is valid and the people chosen have integrity and are closely managed, then everyone with a gun licence kills. I know this as a past young farmer and country farming girl. I know the way it works. I understand the country ways and the mentality. Nature needs leaving to its balance unless it’s an issue as you say, usually man made. It’s a tricky balance to get right. My husband plants a lot of trees on the farm and we have over thirty acres of set aside for nature with over 120 bird boxes. But the squirrels devastated a young several acre oak area.
Graham Bryant
22/5/2019 03:42:08 pm
Jeanette - Yours is the true custodian attitude - thoughtful and without arrogance - massive well done. Spread the word
Reply
Beth Parrish
22/5/2019 04:03:29 pm
Theres a reason for everything. You cant make that decision.
Reply
Frances Wicks
22/5/2019 04:22:43 pm
All animals are sentient beings and have the God-given right to be left alone and allowed to live. How dare humans think they have the right to murder them. It is animals who deserve their place on this planet more than we humans.
Reply
David Roberts
22/5/2019 08:28:35 pm
Your comment is based on the existence of a god for which there is no evidence whatsoever. The only 'rights' in existence are what the physical laws of the universe allow.
sylvia woods
23/5/2019 08:02:38 am
I whole heartedly agree, animals have as much if not more right, to live in peace.
Steve Carter
23/5/2019 12:36:51 pm
In Christian mythology, your 'God' reputedly told you that he had created everything on the Earth for your use. How convenient. Unfortunately this misguided attitude still exists within the superstitious community that still believes the purveyors of such myths (for their own ends) regardless of a total lack of empirical evidence.
Brian matthews
22/5/2019 10:05:28 pm
I find your comments of interest , because you do appear to well understand the way wildlife works , only one thing I am not in favour of is pheasant shoots , but by and large I believe you have got it right.
Reply
Tony Thorogood
25/5/2019 08:29:41 am
Many of the birds on the list can interfere and hold up building work on new housing developments.
Reply
Ray Winfield
30/5/2019 06:18:59 pm
Well Tony, just how do these birds hold up building works for God sake? Linking wings and blocking the way of lorries and builders, are we in the realms of The Birds, (The Hitchcock variety?) 22/5/2019 02:58:23 pm
Kill a few 'chavs' who drop litter and fly tip and leave the other wild life alone.
Reply
Gillian
22/5/2019 02:59:11 pm
I believe that these licences should not be issued without closer monitoring especially where the birds are endangered such as the house sparrows mentioned here. Virtually all animal species, including birds, are declining with the ongoing loss of habitat. Perhaps students looking for a thesis for their degree or masters degree could be given a stipend to do research into these licences. A cheap and practical way of looking at the numbers destroyed. Additionally, they could investigate whether birds are the pests claimed. Many birds are killed by game keepers because they claim that they attack game birds. Research has shown that they are not the pests described but that does not stop their deaths. Birds of prey are an example of illegally killed birds without a licence so who knows what happens with one?
Reply
Ray Winfield
30/5/2019 06:28:18 pm
Gillian
Reply
Mr P Ruskin
22/5/2019 03:01:16 pm
When I was a lad, some seventy years ago, I could not leave my home without hearing sparrows. This was in the heart of Bristol. Now I live in Yate, much nearer to the countryside and to see a sparrow is a delight as they are so rare. It seems to me that since the arrival of the local flock of seagulls most small birds have deserted the area.
Reply
Trevor Cranshaw
22/5/2019 03:28:23 pm
I'm decade behind you Tim but I'm right with you; I too miss the chatter of sparrows I remember from childhood.
Reply
Tim Finch
22/5/2019 03:04:49 pm
Asking for reports on how many birds or animals were killed against a licence granted is surely a waste of time as the licensee has no incentive to tell the truth.
Reply
Chris
22/5/2019 03:06:56 pm
One of the most concerning things for me was that only 10% - 20% of license are applications are refused. That implies that granting the license is a bit of a "tick box". Did I misunderstand at all? I would have expected bureaucracy alone would invalidate a large % of licenses, meaning that people would often have a license granted on 2nd submission because they made an error in their 1st submission. Once you factor, this is in, an acceptance rate of 80% - 90% does not seem very scrupulous
Reply
Julie Taylor
22/5/2019 03:14:21 pm
It seems 'licence' is a bit of a misnomer in this instance, if there is no real consequence if/when someone acts beyond the scope of the agreed action. Breaching the terms of a licence generally carries a penalty. For example, fishing without a fishing licence the penalty is £2,500. It does certainly seem like this whole system needs investigating and overhauling. Nature needs our support.
Reply
22/5/2019 03:53:39 pm
Sorry to nit-pick but they are Tree Sparrows rather than House Sparrows? Strange given that Tree Sparrows are so rare, that we come up with their picture?
Reply
22/5/2019 04:14:32 pm
Well spotted!
Reply
John Woodland
22/5/2019 04:09:13 pm
House and tree sparrows were plentiful when I was growing up but I've not seen either for many years where I live although hedge sparrows, or dunnocks to give them their proper name, are abundant.
Reply
Mandy Lewis
22/5/2019 05:52:28 pm
We have no right to interfere with nature. We destroy their habitats then complain when they invade our properties. It's not just birds- it's foxes, badgers and any other wildlife. To destroy them at will is evil. They have more right than us. We are the virus not wildlife.
Reply
Gillian
22/5/2019 06:23:43 pm
“What is man without the beasts? If all the beasts were
Reply
Elizabeth
22/5/2019 06:35:28 pm
I'm disgusted with the continuing of culling animals! who gave us the right to take their habitats etc then moan that they adapt to live in our city streets.
Reply
Ruhee
31/5/2019 12:34:59 am
Completely agree with you Elizabeth!
Reply
Val
22/5/2019 06:39:41 pm
It seems as though the whole system relies on honest reporting by the licence holder. There seems to be no system in place to monitor what actually happens and no penalties for abuse. Personally I can't believe with the falling numbers of so many birds that there can be any need for licences to be issued at all. I am lucky that I have plenty of house sparrows visiting the feeders in my front garden and hope that this will long continue.
Reply
Kim Hadleigh
22/5/2019 06:40:06 pm
Well written article Jason and very well explained. May seem like slow progress but it is progress non the less and making people sit up and take notice. How can the licence applicants prove that they have exhausted all other means of deterring the birds or any other wildlife for that matter? With the thousands of licences being issued I doubt there is enough staff to even police the matter. It makes you wonder if someone somewhere is earning commission on issuing these licenses.
Reply
Debbie Macmillan
22/5/2019 11:30:10 pm
I find it very upsetting that so many people can get licences to shoot birds that aren't even causing harm to anybody. I was saddened that only 2 pairs of swallows arrived very late this year and one pair nesting in the open porch and other pair in the barn. Before there has been 6 or more pairs nesting there. Usually in September 200 plus could be seen on the telephone wires but even if the two pairs have 2 hatches of 6 that survive, that will only be 24 babies and 4 adults on the wires along with some house martins if they appear! very sad and disturbing! :(
Reply
Bob Hardwick
23/5/2019 08:41:14 am
What are these people doing? We are up in arms about Cyprus killing masses of rare birds and others, the same with Malta yet we allow protected birds here in England to be kill for what seems the flimsiest reason you could think of. MADNESS.
Reply
Rupert Stocks
23/5/2019 10:16:12 am
Sheer numbers of humans is the main problem and our numbers continue to grow
Reply
Eric Franklin
28/5/2019 07:54:34 am
Rupert Stocks (and others) make the central point. There are too many humans. I would like to add that EVERY adjustment made by humans in the population of any species MUST be by reducing it. We cannot directly increase the numbers of any species, though we can, and have, as many have pointed out, disastrously affected the balance in our even more ignorant past. If we over-correct the complex balance we do even more harm, and the general tendency is UNAVOIDABLY the chaotic, unpredictable, exponential REDUCTION in the populations of all species. If, in our ignorance, our clumsiness, our prior assessment complicated in many cases by the atavistic instinct to shed blood (itself incomprehensible to me and to many others), we get it wrong we shall eventually destroy life on Earth. The Planet's own homoeostatic processes will then destroy us. The tipping point is already imminent. Unless humans learn spiritual maturity en masse and immediately, not merely in ones and twos here and there, we shall bring about the human species' own sudden destruction by the Planet which has tried to nurture them (and other species) but has failed. We shall be the victims of our own foolish and arrogant meddling.
Reply
Roger Baskerville-Mansell
23/5/2019 11:41:15 am
I wholeheartedly agree that the licensing system needs a complete overhaul, starting with the question: 'What gives anyone the right to decide who gets a license to kill?' I would then like to know: 'In what way were those people who issue the licenses vetted for the job?'
Reply
Sally Williams
23/5/2019 06:06:21 pm
https://www.change.org/p/mayor-sadiq-khan-make-pigeon-feeding-allowed-in-waltham-forest-and-the-whole-of-uk plz sign everybody .big fan of Mr Jason Enfield
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
|