Natural England approved the trapping and killing of Willow Warbler, Dunnock, Coal Tit, Wren, Starling, Blackcap, Goldfinch, Chiffchaff and Long Tailed Tit in the name of 'science, research and education'.
The agency also permitted the removal of 175 baby birds from nests in the wild, under a single licence application. I now have the results of the latest Freedom Of Information requests from Natural England, the ones relating to two more example licences that I'd asked them about. Each licence allowed for a number of species of wild birds to be captured and killed in the name of science, research and education. Blue Tits and several other small native birds, including Goldfinch, Chiffchaff and Wren were among the species affected. Some of the birds are classified as amber and red listed, being of conservation concern. Make of the following information what you will, for now I'll just report the facts. Some might well question Natural England's wisdom in approving licences to kill even small numbers of endangered species for scientific research purposes. Killing Songbirds For Research Into Sperm Production.... The first licence was issued to researchers who wanted to trap and kill birds in order to (quote) "understand the energetic costs of making sperm of different sizes and designs in passerine birds". In 2016 Natural England granted the licence in which they approved the trapping and killing of male birds. Any female birds captured were to be released, assuming they could be correctly identified whilst still alive. Natural England granted permission for several species of small wild birds to be trapped and killed under this licence including Willow Warbler, Dunnock, Coal Tit, Wren, Starling, Blackcap, Goldfinch, Chiffchaff and Long Tailed Tit. Among them, as mentioned earlier, are a number of amber and red listed species of conservation concern. The applicant, who cited his '40 years of ornithological scientific research', asked to take two males of each species, except for the finch species of which he said he required six. In an email to the applicant Natural England said "This licence allows birds to be taken using mist nets and cage traps. Up to a total of 40 males of the species listed in this licence may be killed. All females and any males that are not required for this research should be released at the point of capture. In addition to the species listed above, the Nuthatch (Sitta europaea) may be taken and up to two males of this species may be killed." They added "Birds may be taken from publically-owned sites in [location witheld] provided that written permission has been obtained in advance." (Note the questionable spelling of the word 'publicly', more about this later.) An earlier email asked "Could he [the applicant] also include something on the application about how the trapped birds will be killed." Natural England have not sent me the applicant's response to this question, so we don't know how exactly the birds were killed. Natural England approved the 'taking of nestlings before they are able to see' The second licence, issued in 2018, was a renewal of an earlier licence and permitted the taking of a larger number of birds, specifically nestlings. I believe this licensee to be associated with a well-known university. In Natural England's 'technical assessment' sheet relating to this particular renewal, it appears that the decision to issue this licence was made by just one person at Natural England, and that the assessment was carried out by telephone. The decision maker at Natural England was asked as part of the process, "Have you consulted with any colleagues (e.g. SSP or other specialists) in NE on this case?" The answer: "No", although a further note suggests that "the application has been previously assessed by [name witheld] (NE Ornithologist), who has agreed to consent the research." Anyway, the licence was approved and it permitted the taking of 25 birds each of seven species, these being Blue Tits, Crows, Jays, Magpies, Coal Tits, Great Tits and Jackdaws. The aim of the research in this case was "to investigate the development of memory for food locations, and other aspects of memory" The assessment of the project reveals that it would involve "taking of nestlings before they are able to see and hand raising them in captivity and the use of birds in experiemnts to judge 'congnitive' abilities of different species." (I quote this directly from Natural England's assessment, complete with spelling mistakes). Careless spelling mistakes suggests lack of attention to detail.... Speaking of 'congnitive' abilities, in the technical assessment sheet once again we can see there are some glaring spelling mistakes and I am bound to ask whether the person who prepared the technical assessment report is sufficiently educated to be carrying out this duty. At the very least it might reflect a worrying lack of attention to detail, which one hopes is not typical of the rest of the licensing system....though I fear that it may be. On the licence itself, Natural England stipulated that "If birds are to be released after the experiments have been completed, all birds will be examined and if considered fit will be released at the site of capture provided they do not pose a disease risk. Any that cannot be released must be humanely destroyed." The applicant submitted a 'nil' return for an earlier version of this licence, suggesting presumably that no action had been taken in the period 2016-18. Whether anyone from Natural England checked this is open to question, after all the agency's operations director, James Diamond, told me directly that they rely on the 'good practice' of licensees to provide accurate return information. Nevertheless the applicant asked for a renewal of the same licence 'with alterations', details of which were removed prior to the information being sent to me by Natural England. So there we are, the latest results of the FOI requests. Removal of blind baby birds and the killing of songbirds for scientific research. Please feel free to leave your comments below, I'd be interested if you think this action is justified in the name of science and education - or whether, like me, you feel uncomfortable that wild birds are being used in this way. Our petition calling for more transparency and independent monitoring of Natural England is now at c.350,000 signatures. I'd love to get to our next goal of half a million. So, please keep sharing. Thanks, Jase
75 Comments
Melody Holt
20/8/2019 09:59:59 pm
Hi Jason,
Reply
Helen Murray
24/8/2019 09:36:02 am
Thank you Melody for your very thoughtful response. My sentiments entirely.
Reply
Angela Richardson
27/8/2019 09:15:35 pm
Oh no, no, no!
Elizabeth Allison
28/8/2019 05:45:34 pm
I agree completely with Melody. Her thoughts were wonderfully eloquent. I'm against all animal experimentation and consider those conducted on these birds are of the worst kind, being curiosity-led. What will be achieved by them that is of benefit to the birds?
Has it been possible to see the results of these so called "scientifick" experiments?
Reply
Jan Lyon
27/8/2019 07:39:33 pm
Thanking you , Jase for all that you've done and continue to do! Bless you for helping our wonderful, innocent animals. I couldn't agree more with you! Please keep working at this to STOP natural England and the likes from killing our birds and wildlife! They have NO just cause whatsoever!!
Reply
Paul House
27/8/2019 08:10:30 pm
Need to be careful here, there is no conservation or science without research and data, so would be useful to have explicit details instead of an emotive report. I love birds, wildlife and support 5 different conservation organisations but am wary of knee jerk reactions without the full picture. Not to judge anyone who finds this abhorrent but ask yourselves what you actually know and what you actually do for wildlife, do you volunteer? Do you donate? Both of those things would help wildlife a great deal more than venting frustration here.
Reply
nabegh
28/8/2019 08:20:34 am
Very fair comment and well justified point not to rush to conclusions with emotions before seeing the details with eyes and use open mind to make decisions.
Stephen Langton-Riley
28/8/2019 01:44:50 pm
The whole point being made is "explicit details", there are none, N.E. either doesn't gather them or even worse hides them, both not right and that is clear from the use of redacted names, they obviously fear the publicity. Who is conducting the research, purposes, procedures, publication and peer reviewers?. I might find redaction of the first, but none of the others are acceptable. This is a taxpayer funded public body not GCHQ, MI5 or MI6, old style secrecy has no place in the world in which we now live, information will always leak out so be up front and honest, not deceitful and dishonest.
Katrina van Grouw
28/8/2019 02:58:39 pm
I agree with you entirely here, Paul.
Claud Snell
28/8/2019 05:52:46 pm
Hi Paul If it were suggested that the same investigative practices were carried out on humans in the name of research, there would be total outrage and quite rightly. So what is the difference? Animals (of every species) are “mute humans” and should have exactly the same rights as do we. How dare we even think it is ok to take what belongs to them, their right to life lived on their own terms. Perhaps humans, who regard wildlife as useful commodities in this way, should offer a family member for research instead, and forgo the feel-good factor of donating to charity and smugly pontificating on the needs of humans over those of non-humans. We do not have the right to make this appalling assumption, unless we are willing to be subject to the same demands.
Lorraine Pooley
5/9/2019 05:19:45 pm
Hi, Iv not the time to write on blogs as I voice 365 on Twitter. So here’s my take being one that has been voicing daily across Social Media platforms about this ongoing Ecocide in Britain got too long. Iv not just voices, Iv told people I meet in the Health Arena, Patients too.
Daniella McCarthy-Stewart
27/8/2019 08:14:50 pm
I completely agree, I am sickened by this 'research', I cannot understand how anyone interested enough in wildlife to want to study them for a job then extrapolates that to abuse and murder of the same wildlife.
Reply
raymond barnes
27/8/2019 08:52:56 pm
where is the RSPB regarding this disgraceful episode ?
Reply
Sandra Grigg
27/8/2019 09:31:34 pm
An excellent comment Melody. It would appear that NE cannot be trusted and is not fit for purpose.
Reply
Keith Dancey
27/8/2019 10:32:14 pm
Reply
Ditch
28/8/2019 12:38:05 am
Fair comment, Keith. Well said.
Kathleen Daly
28/8/2019 11:08:48 am
Very interesting. I'm very hazy on who oversees Natural England ministry wise-is it Defra or Environment? Neither has a brilliant track record. But you pinpoint the key problem about the 'Hampton Principles'. In the current environment of mass-extinctions, surely the principle should be reversed, i.e. economic development must NOT endanger wildlife, particularly endangered wildlife.
Tim Burke
28/8/2019 12:40:14 pm
Not very fair questions on bats; poorly studied (very difficult in the wild), even the number of species is difficult - vagrant, migrant, might breed, may only have come on a boat.
Pamela Allen
2/9/2019 01:36:53 pm
Our species thousand year plus "Economic development" must now be correctly termed;
Andrew Flanagan
27/8/2019 11:29:22 pm
Thank you Jason and "hear, hear", completely agree.
Reply
28/8/2019 05:33:01 am
‘Natural England’ or ‘Nazi England’? The spirit of this ‘research’ is more in keeping with that of Joseph Mengeller than that of a progressive ornithologist. No doubt there are committed and ethical ecologists and biologists inside Natural England. But there also seems to be a strong lobby of intensive-farners who perceive all wildlife as a threat to agricultural production. Its certainly bad practice (at tge very least) fir such licenses to be given over tge phone without due consultation with other representatives inside ‘Natural England’. I find myself wobdering ‘“is this research real or bogus?” And if its real, why are we being denied access to info, as if this was some kind of top-secret, M.O.D directive?
Reply
17/11/2019 09:21:25 pm
Hi Jason,
Reply
Jane summers
20/8/2019 10:53:47 pm
Natural England never fail to disappoint me. Thank you for all the time and effort you must obviously put into getting this information, I’m totally appalled that permission is so freely given to take blind baby birds to experiment on. The spelling mistakes in the report say quite a lot in themselves, and these people have all this power...
Reply
27/8/2019 08:47:58 pm
Although I do believe that someone could have edited the document and taken care of the spelling mistakes, the way I see it, paying too much attention to the spelling mistakes detracts from the real issues at hand, namely the question whether do we humans have the right to do something as cruel as this to non-human species? (What if the writer of these documents simply is dyslexic or needs reading glasses?)
Reply
barbara nobbs
30/8/2019 05:13:42 pm
I am old, on pension credit, and every so often spend a week's food money on bird food. I have a family of sparrows, of which I am very proud. I am filled with fury that grown men are killing small birds for research, pleasure. To what end? Stop the environment being destroyed, sprayed with pesticides, and birds will be fine.
Pat Calderbank
20/8/2019 11:32:27 pm
There are so many useful things that scientists could spend time and tax payers money on that would benefit mankind and animals alike, ...this kind of research is not only unhelpful it is totally cruel, unhelpful and pointless
Reply
Tim Burke
28/8/2019 12:16:02 pm
As the dominant species on this planet, knowledge of the other species whose destinies we effectively control is increasingly important if we are to protect them from our excesses. How birds find food looks fairly important if we are to effectively protect their habitat so this looks worthwhile.
Reply
Lynn Pope
21/8/2019 06:54:56 am
Not quite sure how they can call themselves Natural England if this is the way they have to carry out research. Nothing sounds natural to me from what I have read.
Reply
Jacqui Rukin
21/8/2019 08:08:06 am
Thank you Jason. I would like to know what the actual point of this research is and how it will be of benefit to the species, humans or the world in general. Also how is this "research" being funded? Do NE ask these questions or is it considered outside their remit and if so why? Surely these applications should be investigated more thoroughly before being approved? What is the status and knowledge of those approving them? For me this highlights serious issues and hidden agendas about the role of science in our world when it becomes divorced from the human emotions of empathy love and wonder.
Reply
Edward Barratt
27/8/2019 06:27:09 pm
Thank you so much for alerting us all to this. If these awful applications relate to university research, then this partly reflects the dubious research priorities of the universities and the obsession with academic 'output and performance', whatever the subject may be. If this is funded research, what type of research body is it that pays for 'studies' of this type.
Reply
Jane Braybrook
21/8/2019 09:17:32 am
When Nature is in decline I find this quite appalling.
Reply
Angela Locksley
21/8/2019 09:20:43 am
I'm absolutely disgusted and appalled. It's one thing to try and understand why these species are endangered (though I would suspect because of humans destroying habitats) but its another to kill them in the process.
Reply
21/8/2019 11:01:27 am
Thank you for following this through Jase. I am absolutely appalled for the reasons these licences have been granted. It sounds like something from the dark ages and I feel physically sickened reading through the methodology. With modern technology, birds and other wildlife can be monitored from a distance, only catching them initially to be fitted with radio trackers, etc. Have you put your findings to the RSPB, BTO, Wildlife Trusts, etc? We really need a massive lobbying campaign to call these government bodies to account.
Reply
Donna
21/8/2019 11:03:38 am
It's a damn disgrace that they were permitted to kill wild birds in the name of research. What research and to prove what exactly? It smacks of the same lies the Japanese have been spinning is in respect of the killing of the endangered Minke whale. Perhaps this should be sent to the Countryfile programme to air how easy it is for people to kill birds in the name of 'science'! Simply diabolical especially as we are losing our birds at alarming rates due to loss of habitat caused by us needing more space for homes!
Reply
Paula Stephens
21/8/2019 11:24:14 am
I'm disgusted and flabbergasted! that anyone, or any organisation thinks that this is acceptable. Why? and for what purpose? What is so important that this so called research has to be done? Who's it going to benefit?
Reply
Marion
21/8/2019 01:27:45 pm
Thank you for investigating this abhorrent act, I felt sick reading this article. How dare they call themselves Natural England why can't humans just leave wildlife alone, what on Earth can this experiment prove, whose benefit was it for? Can we stop it happening again.
Reply
Suzanne Talbot
21/8/2019 02:05:13 pm
Thank you for all of your research into what is being done.
Reply
21/8/2019 08:30:03 pm
I am absolutely disgusted with natural England, and what they do! They have no love for our wildlife all they want to do is kill everything, it is something from the dark ages thought they would have evolved enough to realise that killing everything doesn’t solve the problem! Hate natural England !!!!!
Reply
Jessica
22/8/2019 05:42:35 am
Surely we have made enough technological advances to scientifically observe birds without affecting their welfare. Killing them is completely outlandish. We are long over due in treating our natural environment with the respect it deserves. Extinction rebellion!
Reply
S R
22/8/2019 11:25:00 am
Please email me with this:
Reply
chris
27/8/2019 06:10:32 pm
is it possible to get contact details/ home address of the person signing off on this ,so that people may then let them know what they think ?
Reply
Joyce williams
27/8/2019 06:14:14 pm
What are the RSPB saying about this they are supposed to protect birds. Natural England are a disgrace and should not be in charge of anything .
Reply
trev
27/8/2019 06:19:04 pm
A dreadful and unnecessary practice. I think that a lot of people who are attracted into this sort of 'scientific' research (as well as many studying psychology that involves animal experiments) are those who have Psychopathic tendencies.
Reply
Christine Muddiman
27/8/2019 06:22:12 pm
This makes me despair. How have we developed to have people who enjoy killing & torturing animals in the name of research. Our species has so many appalling specimens. Thank goodness there are many who want to walk this planet doing the best they can to treat other living things with respect.
Reply
27/8/2019 06:29:49 pm
There are so many ways of conducting research into birds that do not involve cruel and unusual punishment, let alone slaughter! Any form of "scientific" enquiry that gives rein to destructive impulses, is beyond contemptible!
Reply
27/8/2019 06:31:22 pm
Thanks for this Jason, your research and tenacity is invaluable and will beneficial to the natural world we depend on.
Reply
Robin Lloyd
27/8/2019 06:31:26 pm
thank you for posting this information, which indicates the carefree attitude that this organisation takes & without any regard to the vast majority of public opinion appalled at such licences.
Reply
Andrew
27/8/2019 06:31:46 pm
Thank you Jason for your stubborn determination to get closer to the bottom of yet another vile attack on our helpless wildlife.
Reply
Jean Patmore
27/8/2019 06:39:47 pm
I asked Natural England for help with a badger sett targeted by developers - NE were pathetically useless - waste of space and taxpayers money!
Reply
Jane
27/8/2019 06:42:23 pm
Is this really within the legal powers of N.E. ? And any objection from the RSPB ?
Reply
Andrew Dorterson
27/8/2019 06:46:39 pm
Reply
ndrew
27/8/2019 06:50:05 pm
Thanks for doing all this research and providing your findings to the public.
Reply
Ditch
28/8/2019 12:47:53 am
Good comment, ndrew.
Reply
clive dolan
27/8/2019 07:45:26 pm
Where are the spinless and toothless RSPB ?.
Reply
Timothy Lee
27/8/2019 07:56:30 pm
I believe my thoughts and observations have been covered in the comments above. Just to say a big thank you for your determination in pursuing these issues.
Reply
27/8/2019 08:07:57 pm
Very glad to see such an energetic and favourable response. Has NE never read Rachel Carson's 'Silent Spring'? I'm not being over-nostalgic when I say I have noticed recently that there is not as much birdsong as there used to be, even in woodland where you'd expect to be deafened. As a girl, I was once out in my parents' garden and had to go in because the birds were too loud! Killing birds for research is stupid and short-sighted, and must be stopped. I have never seen most of the small birds mentioned recently, although they used to be regular garden visitors. Just let anyone try blaming cats for the present declining bird population.
Reply
Trish
27/8/2019 08:12:47 pm
Im just appalled that a body of people called Natural England are authorised to kill the very nature you would think they are there to protect... who pays these people? I just cant understand any purposeful reason to experiment on birds let alone trap & kill them .....
Reply
Gracefully
27/8/2019 09:37:34 pm
Aside from my emotive response about killing birds I am trying to look dispassionately at the science involved (if that is possible). I agree that I would like more information on the research and who is doing it especially in the context of what other research has been done and how these particular projects would further contribute to our knowledge. Have the research protocols been peer reviewed? I knew nothing of Natural England until I started reading your posts Jason. If they have procedures for granting licences I wonder if they are audited to check they are following them.
Reply
Susanne Mercanti
28/8/2019 01:12:44 am
We call ourselves humans??????
Reply
Denise Pomroy
28/8/2019 08:45:04 am
Natural England’s job is to safeguard the habitat and wildlife. Not give carte Blanche to certain individuals to
Reply
Lucy McD
28/8/2019 09:34:52 am
Thank you for continuing your investigation, Jason. I am very sceptical about this research bring ethical or methodologically robust. I would welcome a response from the organisation carrying out the research, if NE would be willing to pass on a request?
Reply
Luca Buvoli
28/8/2019 10:05:47 am
I am appalled that creatures are trapped, tortured, and killed to make assessments on their behavioral patterns. To me, this is no different from trapping migratory birds for food as it happens in several parts of the world.
Reply
NIGEL GRAY
28/8/2019 10:55:45 am
Hello Jason,
Reply
William Thompson
28/8/2019 03:02:05 pm
Hi Jason.
Reply
Dawn O’Sullivan
28/8/2019 04:23:41 pm
Time and again we are rightly encouraged to look after all of our wildlife. I feed the birds and some of the species mentioned feed in my garden. Some human beings think that they can just say it’s in the name os science to do these experiments. I think it is truly disgusting that our lovely birds are being killed for what I think is something that is not beneficial for humans or the bird species. Money is being spent which could be spent on trying to save our precious wildlife. Sometimes I feel ashamed to be part of the same race as to people who want to do such bad things to our precious creatures.
Reply
Tariq
29/8/2019 05:29:57 am
"He that breaks a thing to find out what it is has left the path of wisdom" said Gandalf.
Reply
Caroline James
29/8/2019 07:49:04 am
I am simply appalled by what NE are doing. The "scientific" experiments on whales are condemned by almost all nations, including ours, yet NE allow similar "scientific" slaughter to go ahead, unchecked, on our beautiful birds! Are they jealous that the birds have brains that are more finely tuned than their own?? What is the outcome of these experiments supposed to prove? Surely these questions have to be asked and recorded. This is disgusting!! I would be interested in what RSPB have to say. Have they been informed of what is happening? I think this knowledge should be shared with all the organisations that should be interested, DEFRA, RSPCA, Environment Agency, WWF, PETA etc etc!
Reply
Avril Elliott
29/8/2019 08:57:39 am
Absolutely shocked and disappointed that research of this type is going on. Our birds should be protected not killed for stupid/none sense research.
Reply
Caroline James
29/8/2019 10:59:38 am
Unsubscribed in error
Reply
Anna
1/9/2019 08:54:20 am
Always question the motives of government (public) funded 'research' with results that are then eventually hidden behind a paywall and only accessible by 'peer' review.
Reply
mireille
17/11/2019 08:44:23 pm
This not "natural england" it is UN-NATURAL ENGLAND
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
|