Natural England's Response Begs Yet More Questions - And Provides Confused Explanation Of Bird Kill Licences....
This evening I heard from James Diamond, Director of Operations at Natural England, with the agency's response to my questions, specifically about their licences to kill Coots and House Sparrows. I'm afraid to say that, at this point, the response they have provided raises many more questions than it answers. During the very friendly discussions I had with Mr Diamond last month, I had asked why licences were issued over a four year period to kill several hundred Coots, a modest and harmless bird that inhabits our waterways. I'd also asked about licences issued to kill RSPB red listed House Sparrows. Confusion and Contradictions Over The Killing Of Pesky Coots...? With reference to the Coot kill licences, Mr Diamond has offered the following explanation, "Most of the licences are for egg oiling to reduce population levels and help to manage impacts upon other species through aggression, competition for food and egg predation". It sounds odd but plausible if one stretches reality to a point where Coots, even in their more aggressive breeding period, have somehow become a danger to other species. Which other species one might ask? It becomes less convincing when he refers to licences issued for egg oiling at a site "...where the proximity of large numbers of coot and coot droppings to public areas frequented by young children was causing a public health issue". Coot droppings? No, I don't buy that one either. What is much more worrying still is that Mr Diamond told me that: "Control of coot by shooting has only been licensed when a bird has been injured." This appears to entirely contradict the official data provided by Natural England themselves. The data clearly shows many licences issued to 'kill, injure or take' hundreds of the birds and states the method used, this being very specifically 'shooting'. Reasons for this lethal control (as stated in the official data that I have in front of me) include 'public safety' and 'falconry and aviculture'. So to say that shooting has "only been licensed when a bird has been injured" seems to be completely at odds with the statistics provided by the agency themselves. The Questions Over Sparrows Moving on to House Sparrows, Mr Diamond's limited response again begs still more questions. Mr Diamond helpfully provides an example of lethal control applied to this species; "an application in 2018 requested a licence to shoot a single house sparrow trapped in the bakery area of a supermarket. There were two sparrows but one had been successfully trapped and removed. Natural England requested, and was satisfied with, the evidence of the attempts made to flush or capture the remaining bird and remove it over a period of five consecutive months before issuing a licence for lethal control." So that's the shooting of one bird explained then. But what of the hundreds of others? According to Mr Diamond, "In recent years we have issued licences for controlling sparrows at between 5 and 7 sites each year for the purposes of preventing the spread of disease and/or preserving public health." Given that the licences permit the killing of hundreds of Sparrows, perhaps this 'threat to public health' suggests that the half dozen sites licenced to shoot them really need to get their act together and make their premises bird proof! No Reassurance.... So, I have not been at all reassured by the long awaited response to my enquiry. I have already asked Mr Diamond if he can explain the apparent anomalies regarding the Coot licences. I'll also raise my concerns over the Sparrow licences again and I'll update everyone further when I have a reply. I really do respect Mr Diamond, he has been ready and willing to discuss the issues raised through our petition..... It's not looking good though is it? If Natural England think that we will be happy with that response then they are mistaken. If, on the other hand, they really don't have a grasp of their own licencing figures then boy have we got a problem.....
67 Comments
Moira Monaghan
15/5/2019 09:38:11 pm
I feel Natural England is not making any sense I thought that they were to protect the birds/wildlife etc not kill them this is far from reasonable what they are saying.
Reply
Sylvia
15/5/2019 11:38:45 pm
As usual we are being fed crap from authority do not stop please continue as we are relying on you to keep us informed. I do not have the knowledge @ thankyou
Reply
Bernadette Elliott
21/5/2019 03:15:50 pm
i too find the whole thing a contradiction - our wild life should be protected not exterminated nothing really makes sense...
Rose
16/5/2019 09:04:27 am
Hi, I wonder whether Natural England either has, or is subject to, lobby groups in Westminster parliament? Businesses pay people to lobby for them. It may be cheaper to shoot birds than make buildings bird proof. Businesses also have the power to influence grants etc to organisations. So organisations go along with them. The fact that Natural England's rep eats charm powder for breakfast is neither here nor there.
Reply
Val
16/5/2019 10:16:54 am
I see what you're saying, and it'd be a typically cynical attitude; but if, say, a loft isn't house-sparrow proof, ultimately it isn't weatherproof either; so it would surely make better sense to exclude both. Of course, I realise that business people aren't necessarily bright enough to make that connection . . .
Dianne Smith
16/5/2019 09:53:49 am
Until reading your update I had no idea that licences were given to shoot red listed birds like sparrows, or harmless coots! I am sickened by it and thank you for continuing to raise awareness of Natural England's apparent hypocrisy.
Reply
phil
16/5/2019 02:03:17 pm
Never mind Natural England I see you have not responded to my reply to your email. In which I asked for more precise details and further information about your petition and why some control of some forms of wildlife is necessary if we want our wildlife populations to remain as they should be.
Reply
Virginia Jacques
15/5/2019 09:42:08 pm
Well he hasn't really explained it very well at all & I've never heard of anyone living in the country as I have for most of my 62 years becoming sick from coot droppings or sparrows I have sparrows in my hedges they haven't made me sick I grew up with many hundreds of sparrows in trees where I lived they did not make me or anyone Ill so there needs to be no more lies or fabrication from these people letsvhavevthe real intention made clear thank you for the update most appreciated, Virgina
Reply
Annette Rampersad
15/5/2019 11:09:41 pm
Natural England belies its name. Unfortunately it seems to think that our beautiful birds are harmful to us. The only way to control birds is to wipe them out. I have yet to hear of anyone having been harmed by bird bacteria, unless it is by psittacosis.
Reply
Alex
16/5/2019 04:54:17 pm
This really is inaccurate, as are other responses. I am not going to give Natural England ammunition, but people do become infected from pathogenic bacteria species in birds, and if you don't know what is happening with H5N1 virus then you should find out. We are talking about a wordwide pandemic which is a real health threat. The threat is to people in large groups, ie towns and cities. The carriers are most bird species and particularly water birds.
elizabeth mcmeechan
15/5/2019 09:47:37 pm
I don't feel satisfied with the birds still being killed and there reason. seems unclear we are ment to protect wildlife not kill it
Reply
Gillian Hind
15/5/2019 09:48:23 pm
What about wildflowling and the killing of many ducks and snipe? This is often carried out in the evening when it is hard to identify the different types of ducks.
Reply
Alex
16/5/2019 04:58:05 pm
This comment has absolutely nothing to do with the petition. There is only one way to win this argument and that is to keep on task.
Reply
Rita Pirouet
15/5/2019 09:48:28 pm
What are the other species of birds are they planning on culling? Its 60+ isn't it? What on earth are they all guilty of?
Reply
David Roberts
15/5/2019 09:52:23 pm
Just a absolute disgrace . No excuse for killing these beautiful and totally harmless birds. I know what l would like to do with these faceless decision makers and it isnt PC.
Reply
Mrs Anna C Silver
15/5/2019 09:54:47 pm
It really does make you wonder what kind of education and training the staff at Natural England have, before they are given powers to grant these licenses. How on earth can they think their justifications are acceptable? Do they not understand what the red list signifies? Are these staff going to be disciplined and retrained for being so incompetent?
Reply
Bev
16/5/2019 08:43:43 am
All birds have natural enemies that keep the numbers down so why do Natural Earth want to kill them off? What happened to us “saving” the planet?? Seems to me that if we have no birds, we won’t need trees so can flatten the lot! Absolute disgrace.
Reply
Alex
16/5/2019 05:50:58 pm
They definitely do understand the Red List. Coot is officially of no conservation interest, categorised as Least Concern. One of the big problems is the ludicrous appointment of Lord Blencathra (actual name David Maclean), an ultra, pro hunting ex MP, as Vice chairman of Natural England. Presumably, he agrees with their current, culling policies (whatever they are). He has a history of voting in an illogical, pro big agriculture way, sometimes verging on corruption. The presence of Maclean as a major influence at Board level is a disaster for bird conservation.
Reply
Elizabeth Robinson
15/5/2019 09:55:52 pm
These comments inadequately explain a small number of birds killed under these licenses. I would like a lot more detail about numbers and about for instance how exactly skylark s pose a risk to aviation. How much of a threat to agriculture are bulk finches? And so on.
Reply
Iain Weir-Jones
15/5/2019 09:58:37 pm
Mr. Endfield,
Reply
15/5/2019 10:20:49 pm
Iain,
Reply
Dan Browning
15/5/2019 10:38:46 pm
Thanks Jason for clearing this matter up, as I too was beginning to feel like I had signed a petition that I no longer agreed with.
Jeanette Duffey
16/5/2019 12:18:33 pm
Well said Jason. Iain should be sure of his statements before sending his email.
Carol
16/5/2019 04:44:25 pm
Thankyou for caring and for being the voice, for these harmless beautiful birds. Thankyou for all you are doing.
Jennifer Heyl
15/5/2019 11:18:23 pm
Then take your name off. One miserly person against thousands of people who love all nature is no big loss.
Reply
David Roberts
15/5/2019 11:39:06 pm
Like someone as already suggested you take your name off no one is going to miss you that l can assure you of . And l would like to correct you the ONLY PEST in this world is human kind.
Reply
Carol Daniels
16/5/2019 12:31:45 pm
Well said one and all, all birds and wild creatures are precious to this planet, I cannot think of a more destructive creatures than the human beings
Frances Wicks
16/5/2019 09:39:22 am
Shame on you, All animals are sentient beings and have the God-given right to be left alone and allowed to live.
Reply
Carol Daniels
16/5/2019 12:28:18 pm
As I recall the all birds were here before man decided to farm again profitably before anything else. All creatures have the right to live not just man. You can sit in your ivory tower felling justified in killing these creatures but one day you can explain that to their creator
Reply
Mrs. Frances Wicks
16/5/2019 02:59:44 pm
Mr. Iain Weir-Jones, Shame on you, non-pest species? It's non-human animals who deserve their place on this planet more than we humans do. All animals are sentient creatures and deserve to be left alone and allowed to live.
Reply
Chris Tutton
15/5/2019 10:21:07 pm
I think this gentleman needs to look at the ///////////////////////RED - LIST OF ENDANGERED SPECIES,
Reply
Tee
15/5/2019 10:28:57 pm
This is beyond obscene. How dare they act as judge and jury over the lives of these innocent birds when the only 'evidence' to justify these killings is pure flimflam.
Reply
Moira Hanson
15/5/2019 11:26:49 pm
Mr Diamond talks a load of rubbish! I used to raise baby sparrows as a child (before I knew better) and I was never ill! I have never seen an aggressive coot and I do a lot of walking along canals and round lakes!The man is a moron!
Reply
Trevor
15/5/2019 11:27:35 pm
I have over 30 years of canal boating experience and have never seen a problem of fouling caused by coots - though I have seen them fed out of the hand. Swans and Canada geese I have photographed in flocks of over 100 and they can really plaster normal pedestrian walks. So is NE now going to turn to proportional control of these species? I think not. This is a puerile response.
Reply
George Miller
16/5/2019 12:11:18 am
We are in the midst of a global extinction event - a million species worldwide. Here we should be pleased when a species is doing well.Once common species suddenly become rare. Where I live there are no chaffinches.
Reply
Kevin Aindow
16/5/2019 12:20:40 am
That sounds to me like Public Relations BS. If Coot droppings are so dangerous and widespread what about Pigeon droppings? Are they going to start shooting them next?
Reply
Michael Williams
16/5/2019 02:11:27 am
Maybe the RSPB should ask NATURAL ENGLAND to explain their licences to kill RED listed birds in court.
Reply
Alex
16/5/2019 06:06:57 pm
The RSPB have actually done this, most recently on Hen Harriers, so called 'Brood Management'. Against Natural England. As I have said before please be accurate. There is real nonsense added to the blog.
Reply
John Payne
16/5/2019 06:55:04 am
There does seem to be a problem, based on the limited view of the how the licences to kiĺl are issued one can gain from this this report alone. So Is there something fundamentally wrong with their policy remit? Are they well meaning and just muddling through and lacking the confidence necessary to resist superficially plausible arguments given by licence applicants?
Reply
Constance Regan
16/5/2019 08:23:43 am
I agree that the system is in place to grant people the permission- to remove or kill protected species. The assumption is that protected species will not be interfered with without licensing to remove. I agree that so called commercial interests/often under "health and safety' are often favoured over protection of wildlife. Also costs incurred in 'correcting' a perceived problem mean the cheapest method perceived is to kill as it removes the nuisence. Descisions of licensing are made by individuals with whatever degrees if awareness they posess. On what basis - licenses are refused- is the area to look at. That could put the onus on preserving birds as oppose to commercial convenience.
Reply
Alex
16/5/2019 06:19:22 pm
Completely agreed. A bright light in a series of replies which are at best very muddled.
Gemma
16/5/2019 07:22:31 am
Dear Jason,
Reply
Kathleen Danby
16/5/2019 08:09:33 am
I would put just one question - who appoints these bodies, with such misleading and ridiculous names, and gives them such far-reaching powers? Wild birds are just one species of our wildlife being persecuted and exterminated for no good reason. Badgers are another case in point. Badger baiting has been outlawed, and their sets protected, for many years, and many dedicated badger groups often put their lives in danger to gain evidence against the vicious individuals who indulge in this particularly cruel form of "sport". Then along comes someone who decides badgers give cattle tuberculosis, and everything is turned on its head. A "badger cull" is introduced, which threatens to completely wipe out a supposedly "protected" species. Has anybody thought that perhaps there should be further investigation on this matter. Is it just an excuse to save officialdom the time and expense of implementing a mass TB innoculation programme for cattle? For the thinking person it also raises many other questions, but meanwhile we continue to push the badger to the brink of extinction.
Reply
Pamela Allen
16/5/2019 10:46:25 am
Kathleen is right on, we are told badgers give cattle TB therefore need to be culled - I heard on a recent TV documentary in Africa some wilder-beast die of TB its carcass eaten by vultures who digest irradiate TB and diseased carcasses natures cleaners - correct me if I am wrong badgers do not live in Africa so how does a wilder-beast contract TB...
Reply
Alex
16/5/2019 05:15:25 pm
I am sure that everyone linked to this petition blog agrees with what you, and others, are saying. However, you are spreading your efforts on other issues and thereby reducing the effectiveness of our, collective arguments. Those arguments must be about the species of birds which are being killed for expediency. It is easier and cheaper, to shoot a Red Kite flying regularly over an airport than to spend time deterring it.
Reply
Pamela Allen
17/5/2019 01:19:29 pm
Yes it is easier and cheaper to kill a bird rather to save and or deter. What's happening to birds is happening to all nature, the birds are in the same basket one and the same. Take climate change you cannot just look at one aspect of climate change, its right indeed wise to look at the whole problem as with nature and all wildlife. There's greater awareness to the whole problem rather one (bird) aspect of it, why some people bring the whole argument of preservation to help all wildlife as we must like the whole climate change issue, it is not watering down but re-enforcing the argument making it relevant to all species including our own thereby heightens the case to compelling reason to preserve all wildlife including preservation of birds, birds need insects and small vertebrae to survive the circle of life...
Shona Harris
16/5/2019 08:21:47 am
He might be a nice guy but this Mr D is obviously fudging! His response doesn’t hold water, is totally illogical and sounds like he’s trying to back up previously I’ll-considered decisions. Like many people “in authority” he needs to admit when they’re wrong or I’ll informed and make up for wrong they’ve done. There is nothing that doesn’t deserve our help and protection but sadly we have to rely on unelected officials making decisions with little real consideration or knowledge.
Reply
kristin dina plowes
16/5/2019 08:33:20 am
I wonder if Mr Diamond and NE have read all these comments. I might be biased but I hear the voice of reason. Maybe we should ask about the culling/shooting of Dodo and passenger pigeons? Oh, just realised, they are extinct!
Reply
Constance Regan
16/5/2019 08:37:04 am
You would be wise to focus on - under what circumstances are licenses to kill remove or intercept protected bird species refused.-
Reply
Alex
16/5/2019 06:25:05 pm
Another good contribution from Constance. It is fundamentally important to try to keep the obviously emotional side out of this argument. The idiots in control really don't care about people's feelings about the need for nature or nature's needs. They are simply involved in a process and that process clearly needs changing.
Reply
Tim Finch
16/5/2019 09:10:34 am
It seems ironic the "Natural" England feel the need to license the killing or culling of wild birds and animals to "protect livelihoods", but I suppose "humans" have become dominant in many ways on on planet Earth by the destruction of much of our natural environment and, in taking this aggressive approach, we generally act out of ignorance.
Reply
Constance Regan
16/5/2019 09:26:33 pm
Current scientific awareness suggests it is in the interest of human life to protect biodiversity.
Reply
Alex
17/5/2019 03:56:31 pm
Hello Constance. You are absolutely on the point. Somewhere above this I have made specific comments linked to yours about the pathetic appointment of 'Lord Blencathra' as Vice Chairman of Natural England. He has consistently voted for hunting, against the Bill, actually wants it increased and has been reprimanded in Parliament for corruption and tax evasion. An everyday member of the class of person who considers that he knows what is best for the rest of us and for wildlife.
Alex
18/5/2019 09:40:44 am
I have supported almost all of your comments. Your last one, personally directed, was absolutely unnecessary. As a Professional Biologist, intimately involved in these issues on a daily basis , I do have the background scientific knowledge to read between the lines of what Natural England are claiming. I could attempt to give you a primer on modern immunology but since it is obvious that your knowledge of the MHC complex, glycoproteins, Molecular Biology in general, CD4 t and CD8 t cells and the variable regions of IgG molecules is non existent I will not bother. Your comments suggest turning back the clock and re introducing Cholera to the UK. Why do you think that Health Professionals clean their hands with antibacterials many times an hour? If you imagine that an English Literature graduate writing a popular pseudo health article in the Guardian represents general, medical opinion then I despair. This petition will only succeed by staying on task, by understanding the arguments, by ignoring gut responses and by trying to anticipate Natural England's scientific reasoning and preparing reasoned, scientific responses to it. The Coot situation is quite obvious. A dubious, general human health issue, and a definite infection issue to flocks of poultry from Pasteurellosis. I will also anticipate a probably negative effect on UK rare nesting small grebes (Slavonian and Black Necked Grebe, both IUCN Red List Status Least Concern) since Coots prefer the same general environment of eutrophic, shallow, very productive, well vegetated lakes. This is my last reply to your posts since you seem to think that as a scientifist I am the enemy. Realise this - I am at least as anti Natural England's culling policies as you are. Goodbye.
Ken Harbour
16/5/2019 09:44:44 am
Obfuscations is in play here, our government and key NGO's are renowned for it. It's seems it's fine as part of a global plan to very gently and quietly rub out bird populations in front of an acquiescent public since we are seeing tree culling is already in full swing in the UK coupled with this blasted 5G roll-out.
Reply
Steve Carter
16/5/2019 10:42:17 am
Read in that fount of all knowledge Private Eye that Gove is taking away N. E.'s licensing and bringing under DEFRA's umbrella. Something must be seriously bad if the only option is to make this dubious move?
Reply
Sally Davies
16/5/2019 12:02:34 pm
Another nail in the coffin of our wildlife. No wonder numbers are declining.
Reply
Linda Owen
16/5/2019 12:14:46 pm
Shooting sparrows and coots has nothing to do with H & S, or humane treatment of wildlife. Sounds more like pandering to a perverted idea of 'sport'. Disgraceful response from Mr D et al.
Reply
Constance Regan
17/5/2019 06:48:41 pm
The premis will manytimes be 'health and safety'. This is simply factual.
Reply
Alex
17/5/2019 07:43:51 pm
I am ambivalent, at best, about this offering. Socrates would think that since the ancient Athenian city state was only democratic for people like him - described as 'The Good'. It was an active slave owning society with women's rights unknown. As for the Spartan State, the 300 movie could not be further from the truth. This, however, is right off the targets here. What I would say is that there is absolutely no experimental, nor correlational evidence, for your assertion of a depression in immune response due to claimed bacteriostatic skin cleaning (commonly made, like the nonsensical vitamin supplements, fruit juice each day - coincidentally the de bunking report has just been published - and 5 pieces of solid fruit each day - what mass? which types? Stupidity. Your suggestions would be political suicide for any party. By the way, I do not purchase insurance. I have always considered it a con. What I do is to live and work in one of the worlds most important Biodiversity Hotspots where I see the problems of the English Nature type, and worse, very regularly.
Constance Regan
17/5/2019 08:08:37 pm
Exposure to bacteria creates a healthy strong immune response. There is evidence babies get more illness where antibacterials are used 'most common childhood cancer, partly caused by lack of infection' Guardian article. Or New York Times 'Your environment is Cleaner. Your immune system has never been so unprepared'. Etc..
Stephen Langton-Riley
16/5/2019 01:14:03 pm
I get the impression that Mr Diamond is Chris Grayling in disguise, he appears not know what is published by his own organisation and this destroys his credibilty in being competent to issue licenses.
Reply
16/5/2019 02:11:05 pm
This is a warning to everyone who was thinking of visiting Slimbridge ( other havens are available) over the next few weeks, Ensure you wear hats, gloves, eye protection, wellies and full body armour. The coots and sparrows are coming to get you.
Reply
Julie Carter
16/5/2019 03:57:25 pm
Isn't it the human population that needs to be less as this seems to be getting higher and the wildlife seems to be getting less as their natural environments are being lost.
Reply
Christine Burden
16/5/2019 05:35:51 pm
Thank you for your persistence. Natural England is guilty of some very woolly thinking and needs to clean its act up.
Reply
Julie T
18/5/2019 06:21:55 am
Does Mr Diamond genuinely not understand what his own data represent? Possible, but unlikely I think. This sounds like more evidence of the 'inconvenience of nature' being 'managed' ... with a gun, of course. This whole issue still definitely needs more sunlight shining on its murky depths.
Reply
Keith.Clark
28/5/2019 06:26:53 pm
I regularly visit Ropner park in Stockton -on-Tees where there are always Coots and they very rarely defecate on the footpaths as they stay mostly in the water, they sometimes cross them to go onto grassed areas and I have never heard of anybody becoming I'll because of them so I consider that mister Diamond and natural England are barking up the wrong tree.Its about time that they got there facts rite.
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
|